Why 2024 Was the Least Proportional Election Result Ever
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 5 ก.ค. 2024
- Buy a copy of Too Long: www.toolong.news
Learn more about Too Long: • Too Long Q&A
Despite only winning 34% of the vote, Labour claimed a huge majority in the General Election which could lead to questions regarding over the UK's First Past the Post system. So was this really the least democratic vote in British political history?
🎞 TikTok: / tldrnews
💡 Got a Topic Suggestion? - forms.gle/mahEFmsW1yGTNEYXA
Support TLDR on Patreon: / tldrnews
Donate by PayPal: tldrnews.co.uk/funding
Our mission is to explain news and politics in an impartial, efficient, and accessible way, balancing import and interest while fostering independent thought.
TLDR is a completely independent & privately owned media company that's not afraid to tackle the issues we think are most important. The channel is run by a small group of young people, with us hoping to pass on our enthusiasm for politics to other young people. 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, engaging and sharing. Thanks!
I don't like Farage, Reform, their candidates or their politics - in fact I'm on the opposite end of the political spectrum - but getting just 5 seats for 4 million votes is crazy.
It's grossly immoral too.
Honestly it’s terrifying that he has a legitimate chance of winning the next election
Yes I’m such a leftie but the fact that some of us would argue that FPTP is good just so that it keeps out ‘extremists’ like Reform (who mind you 14.7% ppl voted for) is ridiculous, we should all accept the fact that FPTP is just not a viable method of voting anymore and cannot accurately represent the people (yk like how a democracy is supposed to work)
My favourite part of this election is that now the few anti-electoral reform people I know can't just make the "you're only saying that because Labour loses under FPTP". Labour won, and I still want electoral reform. Reform lost out massively under FPTP, and I still want electoral reform. Because it's not about making my 'side' perform better in elections, it's about making democracy matter, and making sure everybody has their voices heard, even if they use their voice exclusively to say homophobic and racial slurs.
What about when Corbyn lost even though he won a huge share of the vote?
voters: "no, you can't just maintain a system that benefits you at the cost of democracy"
labour and tories: "womp womp"
It's screwed over labour for years in Scotland without which they had slim to nil chance of winning, so it comes and goes.
But on the other hand same voters vote primarily for those same 2 parties.
@@soundscape26 yeah because of tactical voting, had we had a proportional system or even multiple member constituences, it may be different
@@soundscape26Because they hate the other and would rather vote for the most popular party that disagrees with the one they hate, then the less popular party that they like the most.
Womp not word
Reminds me of, here in Canada, our current government had promised to get rid of FPTP but when they only got a majority thanks to FPTP, they magically stopped talking about it.
Trudeau appeared to favour ranked ballots, but the Special Committee on Electoral Reform came down on the side of PR which was... awkward... since it meant the chance of another Liberal majority in the foreseeable future was remote. So he backtracked. If he hadn't, and had gone with some form of PR, the Liberals would be in a lot better position than they find themselves now.
Thats because all the Liberals do is talk about fairness and representation and the majority of Canadians, all while doing everything they can to not be fair, represent every day Canadians and the will of the people. They are too busy giving money to friends, raising taxes and virtue signaling to ever care about democracy.
I like our system in Canada. No system is perfect and I like having an MP.
@@Ironguy-gm6vfMy friend there are systems like mixed-member proportional that allows local representation whilst still having proportional partisan representation.
@@zahzuhzay6533 All PR does is break down the members of the party into different parties, nothing changes. All it does is encourage partisanship and no compromise because if you disagree on some minor issue you make a new party. The less parties the better
Everyone is so focused on the Labour vs Torie fight they have ignored how much of a monumental blow this has been for the SNP.
They got less votes mainly becuade of the controversy around Nicola Stugeon and the subsequent changing of their leader
@@Davefacestation Think people in Scotland just desperate to get Tory's out can't blame them think be closer in Scottish only election.
@@markcassidy17 I mean no, if it weren't for the fact that the SNP just went through kind of a huge shift in leadership from Nicola Sturgeon to Humza Yousaf to John Swinney then the SNP would've had no reason to worry about their seats. But since they did go through the wringer over the last year or so, faith in the SNP has been lost allowing their seats to be won by other parties. Only at that point did strategic voting for Labour come into it.
First Past the Post also exaggerated the seat change in Scotland. SNP actually won 30% of Scottish votes compared to only 35% for Labour. This weirdly resulted in Labour taking 80% of Scottish Seats
Look at Alba
Every Reform MP represents 822,857 voters while every DUP MP represents only 34,410 voters. Seems like a difference that is a bit too big.
I do think a system like AMS would probably be a better solution than PR, since we do need the Northern Irish, Scots and Welsh to have their own regional representation [as well as the different parts of England ofc] on top of a more proportional representation.
@@henrrryyyyi agree henryyyyy
Maybe Reform MPs should cast 822,857 votes in the division lobby and DUP members cast 34,410 - like card votes at the TUC, or shareholders' votes. Then it's less important how many MOs there are, the voters still get represented. And it would keep the constituency link.
No. Reform MP doesn't represent 822k votes.
The Reform MP represents their own constituency and that it. No one else.
FPTP is a devolved voting system where MPs aren't elected per total votes in a country but per votes in a given constituency.
It prevents extremist shifts on a national level.
@@AlecBradyGet rid of the house of lords and instead the upper chamber is represented by a proportional vote. That way the house of commons represents constituencies while the house of lords represents the nationwide proportional vote.
Unfortunately Labour and the Conservatives have no plans on doing away with FPTP the entire time it benefits them.
Exactly, and even if a party like reform or the lib Dems won an election in this system, they will soon change their mind about implementing PR.
Exactly, and even if a party like reform or the lib Dems won an election in this system, they will soon change their mind about implementing PR.
Exactly, and even if a party like reform or the lib Dems won an election in this system, they will soon change their mind about implementing PR.
The only way they´ll do it, is if they think it might cost them seats or an election.
Fortunately Lib Dems and greens (and reform unfortunately) are gaining more power and they are all in favour of pr
If it was really "country first, party second", they'd push electoral reform immediately
No, because then reform would get more seats and that’s bad for party and country
@@Racing_Fox413 In PR Reform would get more seats but so would other parties, only Labour and the Conservatives would really suffer.
@@FNB-ih8cc yeah but reform would have just under half what Labour have. Its not good
@@Racing_Fox413 So what you're saying is you tentatively support democracy when you stand to benefit. If you do not benefit you do not support it
@@danuk500 if it creates a system where local issues aren’t represented but a dangerous extremist party is then no I don’t support it
Everyone just voted Labour, and they won because their entire reasoning was “We’re not the Tories.”
They didn't though - Labour barely increased their vote share from 2019 and actually won with their lowest vote share ever.
Labour didn't win because 'everyone just voted Labour' - they won because people jumped ship from the Tories to Reform - thus removing Labour's only viable oppoisition.
@@eljay5009Frix is right. Only 5% of the people who voted for ‘Labour’ only voted for them for their manifesto.
@@eljay5009 also a lot of Tories did not vote at all
@@graveperil2169 Some were probably disillusioned by the screwups and own goals over the past few years, however the polls have been pretty clear for a while that this election was always going to be a Labour landslide - so many probably figured "what's the point".
I have voted conservative in the past (amongst others) - but with the constituency boundary changes, our village has moved from a marginal conservative seat, to a pretty safe labour seat, so even if I were so inclined to vote conservative again, there would be little point. Labour won my constituency with almost 3x the vote share of the next nearest party.
The thing I find the most hilarious is that CGP Grey made a video that came out 9 years ago about how the UK’s electoral system, in the aftermath of the 2015 general election, during which the Tories got a majority of seats. The Tories didn’t fix anything during those 9 years, and now their opposition, labour have a vast majority.
The system is DESIGNED to benefit Tories. The fact that today benefited Labor is a huge neon sign of how bad shape Tories are in... so of course they would never in your dreams change it! It's like asking the Republicans to change it or the EC in the USA...
That's why I think Labour should change the system now that they got the rare chance... they are normally the victims of it.
@@TheAlchaemist LOL no they aren't Labour was in charge from 1997 to 2010 that's 13 years. Then 14 years of Conservatives.
the conservatives have been in power for something like 75 of the last 100 years @@Ushio01
@@pinkblake 63 years to 37 years. And? Labour gets in makes everything far, far worse then get voted out.
There is a reason Labour was kicked to the curb for 14 years after 13 years of Labour and that was mild new Labour not the leftist nutters that were the leaders before and after Harold Wilson and James Callaghan.
Of the last 25 general elections excluding this years that go back to 1924 it's 10 for Labour and 15 for the Conservatives.
Both have called early elections due to issues of lack of faith by the public with Labour having them more often.
It's crazy that reform got half of the votes that labour did and only got FIVE SEATS
cus they didnt win many areas. having a bunch of dumb people in every area vote for you doesn't mean you should rule an area, they need to win it
They actually only got 41% of Labour's vote. But your point is still valid in my opinion.
@@True_Heretic dude you know what i mean
@@True_Heretic akshualy ☝🤓
@@kostas0352 41 vs 50 makes a big difference over millions
The unfortunate reality of FPTP is that the more people support smaller parties the more big parties win
Not to mention that like what happened in France election systems with more than 2 parties can result in establishment parties closing ranks and coordinating to block out any outsiders from governance completely destroying the whole point of a democratic election system.
Think about this. _Only one in six Brit voted for labour._
They got one out of three votes, but with turnout of around 50%, that means that roughly speaking only one out of six people in Britain voted labour.
it looks bad when you include the turnout but it isn’t really fair to include it
think about this. 1 in every 2 brits dont care.
@@breazfreind402 I think a lot of them do care, but they don't see a viable option due to the two party system. Parliaments with more proportional representation always have better turnout.
@@PGATProductions I think it is somewhat fair to included because the low turnout is caused by a lot of people not liking either candidates, and not seeing the point in voting on a smaller party that doesn't stand a chance anyway. Some aren't voting because they don't care, but a lot aren't voting because they can't find anyone they could stand behind.
Only one in 3 votes for Brexit...give or take
Should.
But won't.
That's exactly it.
Depends on what you want to replace it with. Straight PR is even less democratic in practice, no matter how much small parties want to gaslight us into thinking otherwise. There are other systems that are probably better, but it isn't anything like as clear-cut as 'FPTP bad, PR good' as some would like to make it out. The details of how the systems are set up make a HUGE difference.
Probably won't, but they might make some moves in that direction. Keir Starmer will be aware that a large majority (like the one gained by Boris Johnson) doesn't mean you can't be thrashed at the next election, so reaching out to the Lib Dems and/or Greens by reforming the system could prove to be in Labour's interests in the longer term. It's certainly not a given, but I wouldn't rule it out.
@@johnpotts8308 Seems unlikely. Coalition governments historically aren't very popular with voters, and if PR were implemented, the Labour Party would probably be at serious risk of breaking up. It was only the political realities of our FPTP system that really kept it together in the latter part of the Corbyn era.
Muslims will now swarm into the UK after assurances from their man Starmer.
What a dogshit system 😂
It’s like the school system
Numbers that don’t amount to anything
Oh yeah, PR is much better, as we can see in Israel and the EU…
@@ivanexell-uz4mv And how would you reform it?
Yeah they should go to a Iranian presidential system. Fuck democracy and human rights. please stfu
The video thumbnail doesn't go far enough - 412 seats from 34% of the vote is bad enough but then you realize that only 60% of the people with a vote actually used it. Broken system.
Low vote count doesn't necessarily mean the system is broken, just as high voter participation doesn't mean the system is good. The UK could easily pass a law requiring people to vote like Australia does, but it wouldn't fix the system. There are a number of reasons people don't vote. One could be that they don't feel represented by any of the options (that *could* be a sign that the electoral system needs changed, but could also just mean the parties running aren't representative of all the views of the country). One could be that they just aren't politically minded and don't really care what the results are.
Don't get me wrong, the system is clearly broken, but low the vote count isn't the proof of that.
New Zealand did change its election system 32 years ago.
And as much as it gave Winston Peters way too much power, it has overall been pretty ok
And Australia way back in 1918. Ironically it was a conservative government which did it to prevent splitting their votes with other conservative parties and allowing the Labor party to take otherwise conservative seats.
NZ took 2 parties to sleepwalk into it as they thought they could use the issue to get elected and not implement it. Had they both did what the UK and Canada did, there'd have been no reform.
We'll never escape this two party nightmare unless there is electoral reform
The two party system will never allow for electoral reform.
Oy vey! Stop noticing things!
Vote lib dem next time. If labour is forced into coalition with the lib dems then the lib dems would be fools to not make electoral reform a prerequisite for coalition.
@@dars1961 The closest (and probably once-in-a-lifetime) chance the UK had, was the 2011 referendum after the 2010 election resulted in a coalition with the Pro-electoral reform LibDems (extremely unlikely with FPTP as is). Sure, that wasn't exactly on proportional representation, but a step in the right direction. Sadly, the voters fumbled it.
@@ripvanwinkle6557 oh God im gonna nooootice ahhhhhh!!!!!!!
you should have pointed out that reform got 14percent of the vote, while lib dems got 12, and reform got 4 seats but lib dems got 71...... couldn't be any more undemocratic
Yeah. We should probably switch to a system like STV so we get to keep our constituencies, but don’t have to worry about parties coming in 2nd place in a lot of areas but getting no seats.
areas chose that way
Doesn't mattah, reform ah bayud.
Sho dey should nut win
Yeah but areas actually wanted a lib dem to represent them, I wouldn't want a toff millionaire crying about boats to represent my area, because they are just in it for themselves to score cheap points and increase the value of their company.
The Lib dems received 12.2% of the votes and ended up with 11% of the seats. As a matter of fact, they were the party with the most reflective seat count of the vote share.
Yes it is. Winning a seat with 27% is crazy…
"slightly underperformed the polls" is a wee bit of an understatement, no? They got 33.8% and polled generally in the 42-46% range. That's a massive underperformance not explained by voters staying home, which definitely occurred on the Tory side too.
They were polling at about 38% in the last few days (that number having fallen from highs above 40%), and polls typically have a +/- 3% error anyway.
@@alphamikeomega5728they still fell way short based on your analysis
I think its important to note that winning 50%+1 of the seats can effectively mean 100% of the seats power wise since the UK doesn’t have super majority rules.
EDIT:
Alright I’ve edited the comment because I feel like some people are missing the point. My point is that 326 seats can ignore the other 324 seats. This in theory isn’t bad, its a majority of the vote. But it can be bad if those 324 seats represent 66.2% of voters. And the reality is much worse because 66.2% of voters are actually only being represented by 238 seats. My comment has nothing to do with the internal politics of the Labour Party. And even if you want to argue about rebellious MPs, their leader still becomes Prime Minister, as in the head of Government. Someone who can do a lot of damage in very little time.
Not necessarily, since backbenchers on both sides don't always obey the whips
@@monkeymox2544 Sure, the bigger the majority the safer it is. But that goes for every democracy - it's just slightly more common to happen in the UK, that's all. Not something I would stake my democracy on.
Yes but it makes it far easier to rule with a big majority because it means u don’t have to whip as strongly. U can afford to have a few mps rebel against a vote, which means the whips don’t have to be as harsh which then again makes it much easier to get the votes when u do need them.
That presumes the party is in complete agreement or under complete control.
The more seats. The weaker the wings in the party.
That's absolutely not true, and it's bizarre it has so many upvotes. Having a majority of one is seen as almost worthless, because MPs often rebel against their own party. In fact Theresa May struggled so much with a working majority of 17 that she called a general election in 2017- which backfired as she lost her majority altogether, and had to make a deal with the DUP.
Labor just got the biggest reason in the History of UK election cycles not to abolish FPTP.
No, this is the biggest reason why Labour should seriously consider PR.
A self-serving reason. It should be reasonable to demand they serve their voters, not themselves.
@@joefortey4 lol they get almost 2x as many seats as their votes should have given and you think they are incentivised to abolish this system that is serving them so well? Why would they voluntarily give away such a huge advantage? What is the incentive?
1 election where it actually benefitted them (almost entirely because of Reform splitting the Tory vote - without Reform the Tories could have won) - compared to most of history where it has absolutely screwed them over and grossly over benefitted the tories to rule with majority after majority and ruin the country.
If Labour sees the long game and has learnt anything from history, they should abolish FPTP - At least in time for the 2034 election when the Tories probably otherwise will make a comeback with FPTP rules
@@VanderWollsyou realise we already had a referendum on getting rid of FPTP and the voters decisively chose to keep it.
Really funny how Labour blames their lower vote share on voter apathy due to uncompetitive seats and tactical voting, but won't listen to a solution that would solve that very issue.
In the welsh assembly, Labour twice convened electoral reform commissions. Both times they suggested switching from AMS to STV and both times Labour ignored it. They are now switching to regional party list as that gives the party more control.
You mean seat share to vote share ratio, not vote to seat ratio.
Surprisingly, Reform UK had a better voter per seat ratio than UKIP. 3.5 million votes and one seat.
forgot they existed lol
forgot they existed lol
@@SuhbanIoThis was in 2015. UKIP today are a minor party.
@@dertery8724 I know
FPTP is in my opinion really bad system for voting because as Jay Foreman once said "It's the system that makes you vote for the party with a chance to win that we least don't un-hate the most" . If nothing else at least have 2 round system like French.
Because if it was proportional system, results would be approximately like this:
Labour: 221 seats
Tory: 156 seats
Libdem: 78 seats
Reform: 91 seats
Greens: ~46 seats
ID/rest: ~58 seats
Using Alternative Vote essentially simulates a multi round system (removing the party with the least votes each time).
It’s still got all the other flaws of FPTP and wouldn’t be representational. But it does get rid of tactical voting which will benefit smaller parties.
People would vote differently in a proportional system, so it may not look like that.
Thats if labour and tories didn't split as a result, because they will.
Wow, if it was MMP, I think the coalition negotiations would be diabolical. Could end up with very short term governments (France and Italy style). Lots of fun.
@@user-di6bh2vf9oAnd then there's Ireland, which has been doing perfectly fine with STV for a century and hasn't had a single party majority government since the '50s.
The horse-trading needed to form coalitions is a feature, not a bug. It forces compromise and tempers extremes.
Broken ????
It’s corrupt !
Why is it corrupt when it was put to the nation in the 2011 referendum and it was the British people that voted overwhelmingly to keep FPTP.
We need PR, I have voted tactically for the last 20-ish years because of how our system works, not for the party I believed the most in.
This😢
The whole "people only care now it's affecting Reform" take I've seen from a bunch of Labour people is so gross. FPTP has negatively affected the Greens, Lib Dems, UKIP, SDLP and Alliance in election after election. I myself only voted Labour because I knew the Lib Dems had no chance of winning in my constituency. Some Labour politicians attacking independents after cynically booting them out of the party is also really gross. I remember when they used to somewhat believe in democratic principles
Same I voted Labour this year but if the system was more representative I'd have gone Greens or Lib Dem
I've not seen any Labour people saying this though? Not saying they haven't, just that even Labour voters seem uneasy with how skewed the results are.
@@joshuacampbell1625 It was said on Question Time yesterday, on the New Statesman podcast and by a Labour member of the House of Lords in BBC Sounds' election coverage
It has always benefited the Tories and Labor, of course they don't want it to change
@@joshuacampbell1625you’d be surprised… Twitter for one is filled with of these nasty Labour supporters
Remember that the only other country in Europe that has FPTP is Belarus.
Says something about the UK
Elections in Belarus mean nothing 😅
Yes we have a much older democracy
@@davidellis1355get with the time then
@@davidellis1355 I don't buy that argument at all. People can rattle on about the Magna Carta all they like but ordinary working class people didn't get a vote until 1918 and even then with heavy caveats for women
@@user-bt2yw5zq2y that's the point
The time to start the campaign for electoral form is NOW. People must demand electoral reform. Make your voices heard folks. It's critical we demand this now.
We've only just been round that loop and had a referendum on it where 68% voted in favour of FPTP.
You won't though it will be forgotten in a week
@@ditch3827 There are other countries/localities where they fought centuries for electoral reform and got it. Sometimes it didn't take as long. Some failed but persisted and succeeded.
Examples are canadian provinces where they had similar results to the UK referendum on AV. They kept trying and pushing till they got over 50%.
The fight for ER in the UK started at least in the 19th century. In the past few decades we've actually made progress outside the house of commons eg house of lords, devolved assemblies, local elections in Scotland, Wales, NI, former european elections, mayoral and police commissioner elections etc.
If the right events and momentum / support is there the issue can move relatively fast.
I’d imagine if the system was a proportionate system there would need to have been some alliance between Labor, the Liberals, and the Greens to form a government.
Tactical voting was very organised. Stop the Tories was very successful
Now we need stop Labour and give the Lib Dems a chance
@@LOLE_Editz No we don't. Labour and the lib dems need to work together.
@@moomin7461 you miss the point. With the current system, the ruling party doesn't need to work together with anyone.
@@dodgechance4564 True. Unless, of course, they want to get re-elected.
Labour was going to win regardless tories backstabbed their entire voter base. Don't pat yourself on the back too hard there
The UK election system is not broken, it's doing exactly what it was always intended to do. Give the people enough of a feeling of democracy that they don't revolt, while retaining as much of the power as possible within the aristocracy.
So, about that "don't revolt" thought...
I love your perspective 😂
TELL me you don't understand anything about FPTP without telling me.
"I can't read, so instead I make conspiracy theories."
@DaDARKPass
Both Tory and Labour mps are notoriously pro-establishment rich kids who were raised to rule in oxford/cambridge. So no it’s not a “conspiracy theory” at all, merely an uncomfortable fact.
30% of the vote > 70% of voting population voted for something different > 30% party gets to form biggest majority government since the 19th century, dictate laws and set the corse for the entire country... somehow this is a fair democratic system that represents the will of the people?
It represents the will of the people because in the 2011 referendum the people willed to keep the FPTP system.
@ditch3827 that was then, this is now. look at the results and try to argue that this system is fair and democratic, when millions of people don't get what they vote for. effectively a dictatorship when only 2 parties ever get to rule even without the support of the general public.
@@ditch3827 Had the 2011 referendum succeeded, the difference might not be huge. 95% of the time, AV gives the same result as FPTP. In simulations, typically it restrains the party with most seats a bit and gives them to Lib Dems.
AUS uses AV for the lower house and STV for the upper house. The results are drastically different. The lower house has similar number of parties with seats as the UK lower house and is largely 2 party plus like the UK. The upper house is a multi party system.
First Past the Post is a terrible voting system but its worth remembering when the voting system changes, voters will change their strategies. Results won't be identical under different systems as voters will adjust their voting to get their view of the best outcomes.
It is also worth noting that the British public voted to keep it in the referendum so we are stuck with it for a generation
* Starmer wins fewer votes than Corbyn *
Media: *Historic Landslide!!*
But it will always be relative to how other parties perform. Starmer won an election, Corbyn didn't.
its not a landslide in votes, its a landslide in seats, which at the end of the day is what matters in gaining power and having a say in parliament
I mean it was a landslide victory but the point being is our political system shows how wrong that landslide is
@@soundscape26 But that's the whole point. We have a system that rewards cynical microtargeting and punishes actual popular support. It's undemocratic and needs to go.
Tactical voting was really encourage this time.
It's not right that so many people in this country feel their vote doesn't matter, or, that they must vote tactically.
It's not right that Labour automatically get into power because the "other party" destroyed themselves.
It's not right that so much support doesn't lead to actual representation in parliament.
It's not right that the UK is almost the only country in Europe still with this system.
It's not right, it's time we got it rid of it.
from what I understand, we have basically the same thing here in France, except without first-past-the-post retardation
Voters and representatives shouldn't have to keep being tactical to win while the extremists benefit from having one candidate.
In America the parties choose before hand the one we want so as to avoid such problems. If thar system were done in America, democrats would win all the time as Republicans enjoy choices while the left dictate a single person. The minority would win every time. And being tactical would raise concerns about right to run freely.
This dissatisfaction you and others have is the same America jad when they were colonies. So many people, no representation, and taxed loke crazy. Yet a small area that is sparsely populated in England could have multiple representatives in parliament and not pay as much taxes because of low population.
@@duphasdan I thought this was about France for one second and I was about to go insane on you LOL
(we have a virtually infinite amount of left candidates for Prime Minister)
I was really expecting an explanation of how getting such a large seat share happens, instead of just stating that it happened
It’s tough because neither end is ideal. FPTP does result in wildly disproportionate seat distributions, but proportional representation can drown minority voices and give power to extremist trends. The current system is too much, but I don’t think proportional representation is as desirable as people assume.
Well Starmer was in favour of PR and not first past the post, lets see how he looks at it now when Farage comes after him in parliament.
Its ridiculous. As much as I detest Reform UK and their policies, the fact that they got only 5 seats with 4 million votes is absurd. They still deserve fair, democratic representation like everyone else.
To my mind Reform UK’s role in this election was to reduce the local Conservative majorities and it worked almost perfectly.
Better than voting “conservative”. Basically a party of lies at this point.
@@nigelanscombe8658 The tories getting a taste of their own medicine since they have relied more and more on their opponents being split between Labour, Lib dems and Greens. I think a PR system would encourage more people to vote, as they could vote for whom they wanted, which especially important in the case of young people.
Reform and the Greens are completely screwed over with this archaic FPP bollocks. Labour and the Tories are happy to collude and retain this utterly non-representitive system of voting.
100%. And I detest them too. Hehe!
Reform voter here who has always cheered when Green wins seats. Not because i agree with their politics, but because at least SOMEONE ELSE has a voice. A small one, but something at least
Labour voters too young to remember Tony Blair think things are about to change in the UK. Maybe when they see what (doesn't) happen, they'll be less happy about this system.
The introduction of the Minimum wage, tripling spending on hospitals, new hospitals, new schools, improved workers rights, properly maintained roads, no putting Russian spies into the House of Lords and no prime ministers getting criminal convictions in office……..Yeah I remember the last Labour government.
@@sid35gbyou forgot the aiding regime change in the middle resulting in the death of hundreds of thousands (and millions in the aftermath) of innocent civilians, all under the false pretense of upholding peace, by lying to public about the existence of weapons of mass destruction
Well done on pointing out that Labour only got 20% of the eligible vote. It's not exactly a strong mandate for anything is it. 80% either voted for something else, or felt they had nothing to vote for.
...or had more pressing things to do and were happy to go with what their fellow-citizens wanted.
I’m sure all the people complaining now were equally furious when Tories ruled 14 years without ever having majority of votes.
Labour won because most people voted for them. That's just the way it is. Certainly many voted Labour to get rid of the Tories, but most saw Labour as better suited to running the government than the Tories. If you look at the last few years that's understandable.
Stronger mandate than the Brexit vote and that had a larger impact.
How do you work that out? Brexit won with 52% of a larger number of voters than in this election. Labour won with 34% of a smaller number of voters than voted in the EU referendum.
The LibDems and Reform should make some kind of pressure group for ditching FPTP.
Why would the LibDems want to? They got 71 seats with less votes than Reform. It massively benefits them to keep the system the same.
You must know nothing about the UK political system! The Liberal Democrats would eat fcuking razor blades before they worked with fascists like Reform!
@@hendy643True, but PR is part of their platform, like Reform
Granted, this pressure group would involve a coalition between the right and left wings and I can’t imagine the lib dems would want to work with Farage, even if they want the same things
Why? LibDems got 12% of votes and seats.
Yeah, together with other small parties
The goal is to select representatives in each seat so it does not matter what party average percentage is.
imagine getting 13% of the vote and 5 seats, whilst lib dem gets less than u but 76 seats. Love muh democracy
Seats aren't based on % of vote share
Well, just win your constituencies.
no point complaining about the % of the votes, the game isn't about getting loads of votes its about getting enough to win seats and then getting as many seats as possible across the country.
@@FRIDGEYTHEGOAT But wouldn't it be better to change the game so that it actually does become about getting as many people on your side as possible?
@@alvedonarenof course IT would be there is 0 Argument against
Fun fact: in the 1918 general election the uk government made Ireland use proportional representation voting while at the same time Britain used fptp. Their reason for doing this was to prevent a sinn féin majority in Ireland. Sein féin still got a vast majority anyway.
Excellent journalism! Kudos!
Respect for posting this. Fair reporting.
There is zero incentive for Starmer to change the voting system.
A switch to something closer to Australia's system is desperately needed.
Australia's preferential voting system may not be perfect but it is light years ahead of Britain's First Past the Post dumpster fire.
I approve
I am hopeful given that there are way more voices calling for electoral reform inside Labour than there were under Blair. "The Labour campaign for electoral reform" has expanding membership and is better organised, plus unions who previously opposed it have come out in support. There's going to be plenty of external pressure now reform is so openly calling for it, who unlike the Lib Dems, the media won't just ignore. Maybe next election it will be real talking point?
Minus the forced voting, you shouldn't be compelled to vote.
Better yet, New Zealand’s system.
I think this is missing the point a bit. 2019 Corbyn had a higher vote share, but stacked up massive majorities in labour safe seats. To win in the first past the post you need 1 more vote than the guy in second place. This election was a masterclass by Labour and the Lib Dems in voter efficiency. Taking full advantage of the first past the post system. They didn't choose the system, they just got very good at using it to their advantage
And they will do everything in their power to keep it in place until they lose, when suddenly they'll demand electoral reform to get elected again and once more do nothing about it.
It's almost like it's a cycle...
The Lib Dems yes but calling the Labour strategy of just sit tight and wait for the Tories to lose so we win by default a masterclass is a bit of a stretch
The problem isn't that they used the system that exists. The problem is that the system that exists is bad. Yes, whoever gains power using the system that exists will be someone good at using it to their advantage, and I'd rather Labour did than the Tories, but the system still sucks and needs to be replaced with one that would require the people taking advantage of it to actually be representative of the people they supposedly represent.
Yeah, they and Farage really did their job. Usually, the Tories had an advantage in the system, as they have a slight advantage due to the until 2019 missing contesting party (libdem).
And this is exactly the problem. We shouldn't have to vote tactically - we should be able to vote for the party that most closely represents our views. Governments should not work from a single isolated viewpoint. Our society is diverse - why should we expect any different from our parliament and government?
When you say vote to seat ratio, do you mean seat to vote ratio?
Am I the only one remembering that Rishi Sunak called a surprise (to most) GE in summer while many more voters are on the move or overseas as compared to spring, autumn or winter?
I lived 25 years in Switzerland where they have proportional voting and more than 20 years in Canada and the UK where they have first past the post. The major parties in Canada and the UK always argue if you go to proportional voting it will be near impossible for one party to form a majority and there will be chaos and it will be impossible to govern. Arguably Switzerland has a much better economy than both Canada and the UK. Their currency has been rising constantly since I first moved there in 1996. Homelessness, unlike the UK where it is impossible to avoid running into people sleeping on the street in cities like London, is non existent as the state looks after people who are down on their luck. The trains run on time, there are no pot holes and taxes are low. It really works well. The far right has consistently had the largest vote getting roughly 30% of the seats but because they don’t have a majority their policies have been tempered. Politicians are forced to negotiate and convince others that their policies are a benefit which means better less impulsive policies are passed. And Switzerland has a safety valve in the form of regular referendums so if something unpopular is passed the people can vote it down. People are far more motivated to vote because their vote counts. I have to admit in the recent UK election I voted strategically for the least worst party which had the greatest hope of winning. Had we had proportional representation I would have considered the other parties more carefully and I am not sure I would have voted the same way.
Switzerland is not the UK, the political culture is radically different, there is a reason they only accept new citizens under rare circumstances. You can't change the technical structure of a political system and expect the entire culture to change overnight. Giving democracy to Iraq was a disaster for this reason; it immediately devolved into tribalism and tyranny of the majority, because tribalism and tyranny is baked into their political culture. Likewise I think direct democracy would be a disaster in the UK because people do not think through their political positions very much here, and certainly wouldn't take responsibility for any consequences of their vote.
Trudeau promised in his first campaign to implement pp but he lied
Try comparing it to New Zealand. Proportional voting since 1993. Current government is made up of a coalition of 3 rightwing parties. Their goal is to run the country into the ground extracting as much money out for their own pockets as they can before it all crumbles. But proportional voting didn't cause this. "Vote Labour out at all costs" did. It would have happened under FPP too.
@@alex29443 Immigration to Switzerland is not significantly different than the UK. You need to speak one of the four languages fluently, you need to pass a test to show you know Swiss history and you need to do an interview with the local government. I know many friends who obtained Swiss citizenship. You need to live a bit longer in Switzerland on a residence permit before you can apply but apart from that it is no harder and they do not appear to be any more selective. Plus Switzerland is part of Schengen which means European Union citizens are allowed to live and work in Switzerland without a visa. So it is a misconception to think Switzerland accepts new citizens under rare circumstances.
I agree it takes time for people to adapt to new political systems and Switzerland was created as a pure democracy rebelling from Austrian rule. So they have never had a monarchy and have always had a democratic form of government from their inception so are more used to direct democracy. Still I think the fact that the chance of any party getting a majority is extremely low helps temper extremism which is much more likely to occur under first past the post. Plus the Swiss check that citizens opposing new legislation can raise a vote in the next referendum if they can get enough signatures mostly prevents poor legislation from standing. I don’t think the British should be afraid of more democracy.
@@alex29443 So you think think people should be denied the right to decide their own destiny just because you think they would not make a decision you'd agree with.... and yet the Irish who are the only other country to have a system of government similar to Switzerland seem to have figured it out....
A two party system for more than two parties. No wonder Labour and the Conservatives do not want to change it.
I`m from the UK and I say our political system is broken.
The fact that Nigel Farage was put in a position where he essentially was able to determine that the Tories would win last election and then could determine that Labour would win this election, despite having the same number of votes, just goes to show how broken FPTP is
*We've replaced the Tories with Red Tories.* 🇬🇧🇪🇺
There are a couple of things I dislike about the general explanation of our ‘majoritarian’ system.
1. The use of the term ‘majoritarian’. I know it is correct but it leads people to believe that it is majority rule, when in fact it is plurality rule (and sometimes it’s not even plurality rule).
2. The voting system wasn’t really designed how we think it was, it was designed to give shires and boroughs some representation nationally, and that evolved into the unfit system we have now. It’s ok if each area elects an independent to parliament (although even then a runoff round would make the election better locally) and they just represent local interests but that isn’t how it works, people vote for MPs that belong to parties that have whips and national policies so we should have a system that is more proportional. I prefer STV because it avoids vote splitting, is fairly proportional, keeps a local constituency link, and allows independent candidates not only to run but actually to win.
Majoritarian means more than just the way things are elected
@@napoleonfeanor I understand, and the term is correct, but if an MP can win in a constituency with 35% of the vote (like in my constituency) then they didn’t even win their own seat by a majority, rather a plurality.
You might prefer STV, but when the matter was put to a referendum in 2011, the British people voted overwhelmingly (68%) for FPTP.
@@ditch3827this is true, but this is likely because both labour and the Tories told everyone it would be bad for them because they want to protect the status quo of being the two main parties
@@ditch3827 there was a massive campaign against it and you only had one specific other option. You should have first have had a referendum with several systems and then run that against fptp.
You can also make a bicameral system where each parliament has one method
"Democracy" at its finest
Did you study politics at college ?
This is democracy. Only if you would read a single book in your life.
it is democracy, but unfortunately with an electoral system that favours majority governments over proportional ones
@@vorong2ru the UK pre 1918 was also a democracy.
Following TH-cam channel headlines would give the impression there isn't one thing that is not broken in or about the UK.
The system is always fair.until it damages your side.
the turnout was terrible, i am glad the tories arnt in power but come on people wheres yall votes?
i didnt want labour or tories, but i had to vote someone to get rid of tories
Voting Labour just to "get rid of tories" is a very very low IQ voting decision.
Tell me how my vote counts when you've just seen how it doesn't count...4 million people went and voted for about 4 seats
@@Googleaccount-xp8cp 4 million dummies
Oh no… not reform
@@Googleaccount-xp8cpOften the seats that each party didn’t win were by rather thin margins so more people voting could have tipped dozens of results in different parties‘ favours. This election‘s details have highlighted how important individual votes really are.
The turn out needs to be addressed. 20,000 people in EACH constituency who wete eligible to vote did not vote.
Yes! Turn out was truly awful, and is the largest factor in results skewing. Nearly half of the voting population just couldn't be bothered and that should be ringing alarm bells in Westminster.
The Australians *technically* have compulsory voting. But the fine for not voting is only about 10 quid and they accept any lame excuse to get out of paying the fine. However it means that people feel vaguely obliged to vote, so they get about 95% turn out. Therefore the composition of their parliament represents the will of the people.
@@CountScarlioni not that they couldn't be bothered, look at the options? c*nt 1 or c*nt 2? closely followed by c*nts 3,4 and 5... the rich folk are so out of touch with the general population and this is the result. the country should be ran by the working man for 4 years, by someone that actually HAS to budget their money to survive and doesn't start a war with their neighbours or poke a giant nuclear ready nation with a stick for profit.. but that could never happen.. the inside trading warmongers would not allow it. not one of the parties have any intentions of making the country a better place, not while the leaders or their minions are share holders of giant corporations involved in weapons or medicine...
One of the issues for that is that there is a lot of apathy in voters. Many don't believe in Labour or Tories and see them both as effectively the same thing. I personally don't believe they are the same thing, one party is significantly worse in my eyes than the other and I will always vote against them, but nor do I really believe in all of the policies of the other and honestly some of the major things I want addressed will never be addressed while both parties hold all of the power (taking it in turns obviously).
If First Past the Post was done away with and people's votes were not held hostage for threat of "the other side winning", I truly believe that people's faith in politics would start being repaired. I also strongly believe that people should be properly educated on what the parties truly stand for along with the critical thinking skills needed to allow them to see past the lies each tells. Finally the Media needs to be made independent of the political factions and report on news objectively, providing facts and correcting people when mistakes or outright falsehoods are made. These steps are honestly the only way to truly fix British Politics from what I can see, but the likelihood of this happening is near impossible without the people pushing for it, and even with people pushing for it I am not very optimistic.
We *have* to get away from our voting system now or we are going to end up like the US
@@CountScarlioniits not that we couldn't be bothered. Some people weren't born yesterday, are you really under the impression that voting makes a difference at all?
If reform had more candidates so people could actually vote for them, and had PR so people didnt view them as a wasted vote, they could actually win an election
FPTP might not be the most democratic but it does often deliver stable governments with majorities to get things done. The alternative is often political gridlock in a hung parliament.
The problem with calling this the most undemocratic election ever is that the electorate KNOWS the system and there has been an incredible amount of tactical voting on the left. FPTP sucks but this is a result of the electors and parties playing by the rules of the game.
Yeah if you were watching the results on electio night you could see just how heavy tactical voting was, especially between labour and the lib dems.
You give the electorate more credit than they deserve.
yeah but that only means it's EVEN LESS democratic
Cope
I doubt that most people will vote the same if FPTP wasn't a thing
It absolutely needs to change to a ranking vote system.
That would be great, and i hope that the results are so uneven this time that even Labour has to acknowledge it and at least discuss changing it
@@joshuacampbell1625 The two main parties always benefit from it, so they'll never change. The way we get it on the table is by constantly talking about it.
Write to your local MP about it, get your friends and family to do the same.
@@kevinh4869tbf i feel that within Labour, there is way more sympathy for such change compared to the Tories, so who knows
Or just proportional representation. Almost all of continental Europe is doing it already.
@@joshuacampbell1625there is more sympathy in Labour then the Conservatives but not enough for it to actually happen
It's just fine. The results reflect the will of the country. Rishi falling on his sword is not proof the system is broken.
The system is always unfair… until it benefits your side.
👍Sopt on. Well said.
No it’s just undemocratic
Labour never postulated for proportional representation. Should've voted for lib dems
yep, and it seems like hardly anyone brings it up until Labour gets in. THEN suddenly it's a problem
The same thing happened in NZ. When Labour were elected suddenly the media is blaring with 'should we rethink our MMP system?' and we have freakin MMP man, one of the best systems out there, but still not good enough for some people
Don't get me wrong, UK Labour sucks, but it's just funny how the media looooves to make an issue of it only when Labour gets in
@@DougWIngate tf you're saying, people have been complaining about this since forever. Proportional representation or sth like France or US has. UK simply has flawed electoral system.
A lot of people in America raise the issue about the electoral college but to be honest I think the UK has just as bad, if not a worse system in place. There needs to be a change to that but as long as the Tories and Labour benefit they'll never allow it.
Edit: To clarify why it's so bad, the first past the post system means that each constituency elects one MP, that MP is elected based on the most votes, however when there are 4 parties of significant power and many smaller ones, you never need a majority of voters to decide on an MP, so MPs all the way through to national government are being elected by the minority. Of course you need to play the system, tactically vote, but the system is still inheritantly wrong
People will always complain they didn't get what they personally voted for. It still happens under PR systems and then additionally the party you voted for will do things you don't like when it forms a coalition with others and drop some of their policies and adopts some of the other parties. National PR systems are also awful for regional democracy as everyone just has to accept what one or two big cities want. People will always constantly cry about not getting exactly what they voted for but its not actually a fault of the system. Democracy doesn't mean getting exactly what you personally voted for it just means that government by the people is somehow achieved normally by making sure no one group or person is in ultimate control.
The UK system is effectively the same one as for the US House of Representatives and it is terrible.
The electoral college isn't even that bad. If it was not for the electoral college presidents would only need to campaign in three states to outright win. America is huge and people in different states don't want to be ruled by one state that just has a higher population. States on their own are almost different countries with different ideals and cultural attitudes.
@@condorb7756no they are not they are basically the same
Why is it worse?
It a shame who didn’t change to rank choice voting when you had your referendum
Having every seat you gained go on the "probable loss" list immediately after election is not indicative of a strong public mandate.
Can I see this list?
In New Zealand we went from FPP to MMP. It has been successful and a similar system could work in the UK. Proportional representation means people can vote regardless of where they live and their vote counts. It generally leads to coalitions. If the UK did have it then get rid of the coat-tails rule and set the minimum party vote higher than 5% and that would give you greater stability. 5% is still pretty fringe and the coattails is just plain dumb.
it kills the meaning of parties like Plaid Cymru and SNP, as they got only about 1%, regional parties are not a bad thing
We don't have regional parties but we have Māori seats. In the UK you would have a minimum number for Scotland Wales and Northern Ireland. So it wouldn't kill them in the way it doesn't kill them now. Party lists top up electorates so the overall parliament is proportional so when smaller groups get in it would lead to some overhang seats that's all.
@@picklearts2678 Plaid got 4 seats off the back of less than 200,000 votes - whereas Reform got 4 seats off over 4 million votes.
It give's small parties with concentrated support (and thus their voters) much more power. All votes should have equal strength, but they don't with our current system. There used to be a website where you could put your post code in and it would tell you what your effective voting power was. It still exists but doesn't appear to be working.
@@eljay5009 no they shouldn't all have equal strength because we vote for our constituent to represent us, not the party. What you have is the dumbest % of people in each place voting reform, that shouldn't equal more seats
@@picklearts2678 IMO as Wales and Scotland are separate countries (people tend to forget that) they should have their own separate elections - Scotland effectively does as its a weird system designed to mess the Scots over
Simple. Proportional representation. How we don't have it is beyond me.
It is because in the 2011 referendum the British people overwhelmingly rejected it.
@@ditch3827 rejected alternative voting not proportional do your research fella
@@michael_burry_burner I remember it clearly and it was very much about PR. There was considerable debate and consultation and AV emerge as the frontrunner to be put to the people.
@@ditch3827 yeah because tory didn’t want proportional representation even tho Lib Dem did, probs just look it up before talking about it next time
The UK needs politicians who will support proportionality
don't worry. we've got nonce labour in
Why when in the referendum 68% of the public voting against proportionality?
@ditch3827 that is because FPTP benefits the two establishment parties
Too long? Didn't read, and I'm confused as to why they'd market a magazine to an audience watching a channel called TL;DR
I didn't bother voting for this exact reason. Even if I voted, it wouldn't have meaningfully influenced the governance of the country since I wouldn't vote for either of the big parties. Especially considering the constituency where I live is an ironclad labour stronghold. Changing our electoral system is, by far, the single most important thing in politics. A proportional representation system will reinvigorate our democracy and make every vote matter.
There will never be meaningful change in this nation unless the two ruling parties actually feel the fear of losing their hegemony, and this can only realistically occur once the FPTP system has been replaced. Otherwise, we will only indefinitely continue the labour conservative cycle where nothing of note ever really improves.
You seem to forget we had a referendum on this not so long back and the British People voted overwhelmingly for FPTP.
You should always vote even if system is against you
@@ditch3827 Yes, one I was too young to vote in. Others voted for it, good for them, my opinion is that FPTP is an abysmal electoral system.
We need proportional representation like in Scotland
Remoaners keep saying brexit vote to leave wasnt big enough at 53 per cent but its ok to win election with 30 per cent!!!!!!
If only you could vote for the party that you actually want...
First Past the Post can only approach being democratic if you have a French-style two-round election. OR you could use the Australian 'preferential' (AKA 'instant runoff') system. To be more democratic, while still retaining geographical constituencies, you could try Mixed Member Proportional - as used in Germany and New Zealand. BTW, Australia has a simple solution to low voter turnout: voting here has been compulsory here for about a century. Note: Australia also conducts elections on Saturdays, making a work/voting clash less likely.
We also get democracy sausages, which is the main reason I participate in our democracy.
It still wouldn't approach being democratic with a two-round election. You are still voting for the lesser evils, not who you actually want. You just get two rounds of voting for the lesser evil. That's much better(!)
MMP/AMS is a reasonable compromise. If we do that we should have now more than half the seats elected through FPTP constituencies, as MMP/AMS still sometimes produces relatively undemocratic outcomes.
The French two-round system is just IRV with extra steps.
There is no reason to do any of those when a single ballot with ranking is more democratic.
@@Y2B123 But rejected by the people in the 2011 referendum when 68% voted to keep FPTP as it is.
I have a problemn with the logic here.
We're not voting for a party.
We're voting for our MP, who happens to be associated with a party.
It's a small but *very important* distinction.
And most of the time we don't get that MP
And this is the thing. Proportional representation makes the very wrong assumption that all politicians from one political party will vote and act the same way, for every bill. No thought goes to how these politicians are elected by their constituencies, and how politicians don't have to go with their party every time. That being said, if the national politics in a country has reached the level where most people give it more priority than local politics (which should not be the case), then the argument can be made for a system of proportional representation. But to do so in a country which otherwise has very diverse localities, means to impose "groupthink" upon entire populations that do not necessarily think the same, or vote the same.
That assumption is too removed from reality
Thank you for bringing this up. It's a very important distinction.
@@captainnice1881 Huh??
It’s working perfectly as designed. It’s insuring the people’s voice is muted and the establishment retains power.
If every tory voted reform, would reform have even more seats than labour has now?
I find it convenient that they left out that a referendum was held in 2011 to review how the UK vote system worked. The first past the post system was the UK voted to keep because it suited everyone. Now that the country is divided, suddenly everyone changed their minds because the system they wanted was used against them and they didn't the result THEY wanted.
People were offered a ninary choice between FPTP and AV in 2011. It was not an actual referendum on fundamentally changing the voting system.
If people had been actually offered PR in that referendum they may have voted for it.
In my view we could hold a multiple choice electoral reform referendum; AV, PR, FPTP, any other systems that can be considered. Top two advance to a second round and the issue would then be settled for a generation.
No, it's because the proposed alternative, AV+, was overly complicated and poorly explained. The vote against AV+ wasn't a vote for FPTP.
A more sensible choice would've been to go with a proven, established system such as IRV or MMP, but a combination of the UK not knowing how to run referendums and needing to be special lead to the absolute confused mess that was the AV+ referendum.
... What can I say, Britains are has shortsighted as americans, which makes sense considering their common ancestors.
I could see Starmer trying to change to an Alternative Vote system rather than a Proportional vote system, first to appease those who have begun to dislike FPTP, second because Proportional vote would put him at a disadvantage, and third that Labour is more likely to be a 2nd or 3rd choice in the alternative vote system for a lot of Lib Dems and other more left leaning voters than their biggest competition, the tories.
Proportional would be better but if Labour wanted to keep their advantage while looking to appease those complaining about FPTP, changing it to a slightly more fairer system while keeping their advantage is in their best interest.
If he tries to fob us off with that he will get a big backlash.
Ooo great video!
"Is Britain's electoral system broken?" Yes mate
The last time we had a democratic election, where a majority of seats was the result of a majority of votes, was about 90 years ago.
Labour Conference 2022 overwhelmingly backed PR for general elections - with 83% of party members supporting it.
you should know Parliamentary Labour never listens to it's members ever.
But in the 2011 referendum when we were given the chance to change it, the British nation voted overwhelmingly to keep FPTP.
@@ditch3827 The referendum was about the Alternative Vote system, not PR, and the Tories campaigned to reject. Now we have so many parties the case for PR is ineluctable.
@@frogandspanner It was about PR, there was a lot of debate and consultation about alternatives systems and AV was chosen as the frontrunner to be put to the people. The people chose (and, like Brexit, it was not how I voted) and we need to respect that decision for a generation
@@ditch3827 AV is not PR
It was time to ditch FPTP decades ago. However, the answer isn't necessarily proportional representation. Other options include top-two runoffs in each constituency (my recommendation), and instant runoff voting.
All electoral systems have disadvantages, but I think PR is the least bad.
We had a referendum on instant runoff voting in 2011 and it was rejected by the British public.
You're better off with IRV than having a second run-off. Mathematically, they're pretty much identical, but IRV is less disruptive and encourages local cooperation around transfer management between candidates, which encourages them to consider the wishes of those they're getting transfers from. Seeing how transfers flow between candidates through the counts is useful feedback.
Also, it avoids situations like the current headless chicken situation that's happening in France with their two-round run-offs.
@@eljay5009 Stupidest decision this country has ever made.
Including Brexit.
@@MinimmalmythicistPR isn't one system. IRV isn't a proportional system, but it's at least closer to giving proportionality than FPTP is and avoids "wasted" votes because you can give your preferences freely. For actual proportionality, you need multi-member constituencies of some kind, either by making them multiseat like in STV, a mixed-member system, a system of levelling seats, &c.
UK was already dying, so acceleration really doesn't matter.
Disproportionality is a symptom. The problem is vote splitting. Most proportional systems have symptoms that are as bad as disproportionality. You can fix vote splitting without resorting to a proportional representation system. For example star voting or approval voting.
Gotta love all the Reform voters suddenly discovering they don't like FPTP. But they had no problem with it when they were supporting the Tories.
I really like PR, and Labour said they'd at least give a referendum for it. However, with this result, the benefit in FPTP for Labour might sway their policy, meaning no PR, which would, in my opinion, be quite bad for democracy.
Without a doubt, yes. Neither democratic nor representative. Something has to change.
Why when the British people overwhelmingly voted to keep the current system in the referendum? Do you not respect the will of the people?
@@ditch3827
14% of the votes gets 5 seats.
12% of the votes gets 72 seats.
Does that respect the will of the people?
In fact the referendum was to go to an AV system, not a PR or any other system.
@@hughjohns9110 Absolutely as it was the British people (though not me) who voted to keep FPTP.
@@ditch3827 we voted to keep fptp rather than go to av, not pr. I thought my previous comment was perfectly clear on that point. We have never been offered pr.
Let’s be honest. How will the system change if Labour and Tories have so many seats in parliament???
Proportional representation (PR) is the only truly democratic voting system. Neither of the big parties want it because it would make it almost impossible for any party to get an overall majority. However, it would mean that every vote carries the same value rather than just the marginal seats.
Democracy is when you have a uniparty who can't be voted out.
We don’t really