The UK's Election Was Its Most Uneven EVER
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 5 ก.ค. 2024
- Why is that, and what can fix it?
If you want to support more videos like this one, I have a patreon:
/ toycat
This is the "scratch off" map I use to track which countries I've been to:
amzn.to/45ZsPlE
/ toycat - Subreddit community! For discussions on all the things you see on this channel
Check out my probably main channel at / ibxtoycatletsplays
Also on twitter @ibxtoycat
![ลักพาตัว เอาลูกเอิร์นกลับมา...!! [เอิร์นไดเม่]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/f4NVKlZ5qkk/mqdefault.jpg)
We are truly blessed to live in a society with the same electoral system as Belarus
BELARUS MENTIONED???⚪️🔴⚪️ 🦬 🦬 🦬 🫡🫡🫡
You forgot China, Russia and North Korea.
china, russia
@@chat4783 pretty sure china and north koreas voting systems differ significantly. north korea im not even sure if the have votes. china has votes but only members of the ccp can vote. i think? im an idiot so not sure
I would say its more like the Indian system
Should me vote matter less if I live in Slough? Yes.
Honestly now that I read this I agree with it
Yes
Yours in particular, or Slough in general?
Don't worry. Here in germany we have an actual legit voting system, yet our politics are shit anyways as well.
Yeah, it must be said Germany, France and Italy are very bad examples for why we should reform the electoral system at present.
@@CountScarlioni True, yet a similar thing can happen with Reform and they only need to cleverly increase their vote rate by about 10% for that. So it is easier for the UK to end up in a similar situation, they just are not there... yet....
@@CountScarlioni France uses FPTP, they just have a run off. They used to use PR and used to be even more fragmented. If France used just one round FPTP their lower house would be rather distorted in terms of votes to seats.
Govts of the day shouldn't be the sole metric. Germany's system is a good one.
I feel like the "I'm not gonna vote because they'll get a landslide" effect is much less important in marginal seats because people in marginal seats know that votes are important relative to safe seats.
This election, safe seats became marginals and many marginals became safe seats, though lol
@@ibx2catdefinitely. His point stands but you are also correct and people should not take their vote for granted!
Yes my area has been conservative for many years by a large majority however labour managed to just about win the seat this year
@@ibx2cat But in most cases the average voter will know that their seat has become marginal because of the intensity of campaigning.
@@stephengray1344many marginal seats like those where insane lunatic independents won had terrible turnout because people didn’t realise it would be close
Proportional Representation seems to be in demand these days.
People who live in "landslide districts" are tired of their vote being thrown away, because their district always votes a certain way.
@@arthurwintersight7868 Can you please elaborate?
@@kallumtownend3138 - Some places consistently give more than 70% of their votes to a single party, and have for years, so your vote effectively doesn't matter in those areas. You might as well throw your ballot in the trash.
@@kallumtownend3138If you live in a constituency that votes for 70% one party, if you have a different political position, your vote is irrelevant under FPTP.
@@AokijiTheIceWarriorAlso if you have an aligned political position. Either way, the end result is unaffected by your vote.
To counter the statement "I don't vote for a coalition," I would say that in a country with proportional representation, voting for a coalition is an inherent part of the process. When I cast my vote, I understand that the party I support will back a leader from another party, and that's acceptable to me. They even campaign on supporting another party leader. What matters is that my chosen party can influence the agenda. In a system where no single party normally can secure a majority, voters are aware that forming a coalition is the only path forward. I believe that better decisions arise from compromise and collaboration.
As a Scot, I totally agree. In Holyrood I vote for a smaller party to have a bigger voice in my preferred "wing" of the parliament. In Westminster I can't take that approach.
It would also be nice if we didn't need to compromise to form coalitions and instead each party just vote for policies they like and against policies they don't like, so that they don't compromise on what got them elected. That granularity in policy preferences is what's good about having a large amount of parties in the first place
And also only the universally liked policies will be passed, none of the crazy ones (unless your entire system is corrupt, of course)
How can anyone still argue that First Past The Post creates stability after the past 14 years? How representative is a government that got 33% of the vote but occupies 66% of parliament?
The idea of FPTP is that every MP fights for the interests of their constituency, but that's not really possible with the concept of "whip". Either remove the whip or remove FPTP. Everything else is dishonest
if people increasingly vote for a leader/party and not their local guy, the whip does make more sense. Not saying that people should though.
Just make it have a second round where the top two from the first round get voted on. That would make it much more fair and still have the whole "interests of their constituency" thing.
@@ibx2cat then why bother having MPs in the first place? Then let's just elect a president who can decide everything.
i feel like fptp would work for voting in the house of lords, then using pr for the house of commons :/
@@ibx2cat Political parties should be abolished.
I spent the entire video trying to figure out what Toycat's preferred party was
The good party
@ibx2cat
So, the Count Binface Party?
I really liked his policy of putting a price cap on Crossaints.
@@ibx2cat Cromwell?
I live in Slough, but due to boundary changes recently, I come under Windsor.
And people say the Tories are bad at offering people social mobility. You just jumped 10 social classes.
Well done mate 👏
What an upgrade!
At least add a second election round for God's sake
Never thought I'd be learning British politics from the same TH-camr who did the Minecraft videos I used to watch as a kid, absolutely wild timeline.
I only know him as the map guy, never watched any of his Minecraft content
"No one has pride for Slough" tell that to David Brent
Although I do believe in vote reform, and took part in campaigning for the 2011 AV Referendum, I have to say I'm really not a fan of how suddenly there's so much demand.
2 weeks ago I'd have struggled to make anyone give a s**t about it online. Seems to me the upset is manufactured by certain right wing populist forces who got brutally disadvantaged by it.
Left wing complains about unfair bias in FPTP. _cricket noises for decades_
Right wing complains about unfair bias in FPTP. *OUTRAGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!*
Yes this has not gone unnoticed, no really big splash was made when a right wing party benefitted in the last 14 years but suddenly they stopped and now its everybody's problem. Not saying it isn't an issue but it would be better if we used a ranking system than if it was proportional to the amount of votes.
I know, people keep crying now about FPTP when it's obviously bad and always has been but we the people still voted against it (I wasn't old enough to vote). Imagine if we had a government that had to work together with other point of views instead of having a majority when 2 thirds of the country hate them and they can still do whatever they want.
As a kiwi, who moved here from the UK, yes, electoral reform (in the UK) would be fantastic.
MMP isn't perfect, but it solves a *lot* of the issues.
To massively oversimplify, any wasted votes for your local MP go into a sort of slush pool that assigns extra seats to parties in proportion to how much of the country voted for that party.
It's a bit more complicated... this election actually reflects the anti-tory vote quite accurately. About 75% of people voted against the tories and about 75% of the seats went to non-tories. In a lot of ways this is the most representative result ever (which says something quite damming about the electoral system in its own way).
If it wasn't for vote splitting by the green party and the lib dems then the tories would have formed almost zero governments since 1992. In every previous election a green vote was a tory vote, a lib dem vote was a tory vote.
The thing that ha made this election more representative is that reform split the right wing vote in the same way that the greens and lds usually split the center/left vote.
You suppose Green voters simply want the Tories out. We want our policies pushed on Labour. I don't mind the fact that my Labour candidate lost to our long term Tory MP.
If Labour wants my vote, then they can offer policies that appeal to me. If not, then so be it.
Otherwise, yes - it was technically a bad election, but I think many people are generally happy with the outcome.
I dont know much of anything about coalitions. I just know that "coalition" is a cool word. So we should have more governments that need to form coalitions, so i can say "coalition" more.
I doubt itll ever happen in the us though. So sad.
when multiple parties make a contract with each other to achieve a common goal that is sort of in the middle of their original goals.
And at the same time achieve 51% in parliament to become a ruling coalition
Actual seats vs the number of seats if we had proportional representation:
Labour: 411 vs 219
Conservatives: 121 vs 154
Lib Dem: 72 vs 79
SNP: 9 vs 16
Sinn Fein: 7 vs 5
Reform: 5 vs 93
DUP: 5 vs 4
Green: 4 vs 42
Plaid Cymru: 4 vs 4
4:46 if you speak of Major Economies: Switzerland despite being known for our direct democratic systems have on average a very low turnout: in the last mayor elections 2023 on 46.7% of swiss adults went to vote, since we have a low population, this makes it that only 2,6 Million people actually voted.
Doesn't this make it easier for politicians to collude and build networks that ensure they stay in office and suck up public funds?
One thing to show how weird these results are from a representation point of view is that even though Labour won one of the highest numbers of seats ever, it is the lowest percentage ever for the largest party. In fact, until 1980 this would have been an extremely low percentage for a *second* party.
FPTP has gone WAY past its sell by date imho
Give us STV. No tactical voting. We still get to vote for local MPs. It’s harder to gerrymander than in other systems. Results are more proportional and don’t leave a large portion of voters without representation.
@@BananaWasTaken mpv is on top !
@@BananaWasTakenmight as well do germany's 2 vote system with proportional representation and FPTP winners in electoral districts
As an American, I would sacrifice Oil, Guns, AND Bald Eagles for FPTP voting, even though it sucks.
@@BananaWasTakenSTV would Will have some level of tactical voting and would require to make constituencies less local.
This is how you make a video about politics! High energy and with plenty of context behind both facts and opinions
Hey Toycat! Probably the best example this year of FPTP in action is South West Norfolk. Former PM Liz Truss had 69% of the vote in the 2019 election, whilst Labour was on 18.1. Fast forward to this year, and a former conservative stands as an independent to try and unseat her, gathering 14.2% of the vote. Reform's candidate got 22.4%, and Truss got 25.3%. You may notice this is roughly 62% between the three. This led a 51% majority, extremely safe Conservative seat to become a Labour seat with 26.7% of the vote, due to a three-way right wing vote split.
However- it was HILARIOUS. And to be fair the guy did unseat her- just not in the way he wanted.
never though id be seeing ibxtoycat talking about first past the post or elections
Chilean person here, we here use a proportional representation system, which uses the D'Hondt method. You can borrow it if you want :kappa:
Why can't we vote for policies we care for instead of people?
Voting for policies gets you what you want for the first 6 months
Voting for people gives you a general guess on what they'll do the entire term
Both are valid reasons to vote
Is it valid to vote based on a party's disposition (By which I mean their general philosophies and beliefs and attitudes towards governing) instead of policies?
You forgot Australia just dosent have compulsory voting. we get a sausage sizzle and sometimes a bake sale too .
People just wanted the tories out and voted tactically, whether it be for Labour, the Lib Dems, or even the Greens.
A lot of people who voted reform are either never going back to the Tories or it would take a lot like either running to the right or labour being woefully unpopular. And even labour being unpopular may not being enough as you can see people still have nightmares about labour meaning their vote share didn't go up but they still won because Tories were very unpopular.
You saw this election how greens more than doubled their vote share and although I don't share their views at all it's a good thing in my view that happens. Government at least in the UK is best served as fractal, not 2 big parties with 60 percent of the vote but 95 percent of the seats.
Tories are going to have a hard time getting the majority back, if they run to the center who are they siphoning votes from, the liberal democrats? Their vote share didn't even go up although turnout was low. Labour, they just kicked you out. If they run to the right it simply won't work because they campaigned on stable immigration numbers and to their voters in their view they didn't achieve that at all, and when you relinquish power there's no way to convince voters you would do different because you didn't when you had it .
The bridge head thing reform talked about worked, and they now have invaluable data in where they could pick off seats, they did extremely well in near some bordering and surrounding districts of south basildon and east thurrock, llaneli, perhaps montgomeryshire is vulnerable in Wales, maybe that former Liz truss seat. Reforms mission has to be for 2029 to kind of set-up infrastructure to become the right wing version of the liberal democrats, if they can develop strongholds in these areas, win some of the local races, it will help them a lot and I expect them to gain, they have no reason to bargain with conservatives in 2029, Tories are very vulnerable. You will probably have a few deflectors from the Tories go to reform, I expect maybe 2 or 3, could be more because a lot of well meaning people are frustrated with tory policy and tory policy is split in like 8 different fractions.
Chat is proud of you, Mr. Cat.
the real nastiness in the whole election is that labour needed vastly less votes to get a seat than the reform party
(it was something like labour only needing about 100k votes or something like that to get 1 seat while reform needed 1 million votes to get 1 seat)
thats good cause reform would cause the end of democracy in Britain, voting reform is like voting for hitler
That's not really a "nastiness", and you're phrasing it wrong. It's not that labour needed less votes to get a seat, but that they converted more votes to seats. Reform's vast majority of votes got wasted.
Yay Toycat with the shout out for Rochester & Strood 😊
Radical Centrist:
'I DON'T UNDERSTAND POLITICS AND NEITHER SHOULD YOU!'
Previous elections I've deliberately spoiled my ballot because I didn't want to support any of the available parties, but since there's no distinction between a protest vote and a mistake I just didn't bother voting at all this time. Really wish there was a "none of the above" option haha
24:54
WHAT THE HELL, I remember going to the corner shop at that exact spot a year ago, literally the first time I had been in the area, never expect to go back in my life, and it was the one and only stop that I made because I needed something from the shop
22:55
Your assumption that there's more deals behind closed doors in a PR system then a first past the post system is just outright wrong.
For instance.
In a PR system many of the separate parties would have been party factions within a fptp system, meaning that in a first past the post system they'll negotiate policies behind closed doors, and voters don't really have much say in the matter.
Factions will split and split the vote if they don't get enough support for their policies within the party.
Its all negotiated...
At least in a PR system you help decide the relative strength of the various factions.
And the main parties are more likely to have multiple alternatives to form a government, instead of *having* to accept just any partys ultimatums...
Ireland uses STV (as does Australia for the Senate - where I’m from) and I think the UK should consider it. STV is basically ranked choice proportional representation, and it **marginally** favours smaller parties (but not by a lot because of quotas, transferring of votes, etc). Or at the very least AV - but I know the UK voted against it
We had a referendum back in 2011 I think and the electorate rejected it. But I think now more people understand what it entails I believe it would pass.
But now that Labour is in power I don't see it happening. Because they would lose huge amounts of seats.
@@awestruckbeaver3344yea, we use AV for the lower house of our parliaments and it’s great, it elects the most liked candidate or least hated. Idk why you guys voted against it, it’s such a good system for single member constituencies.
@@awestruckbeaver3344I think AV would’ve helped labour and the lib dems in over throwing more conservatives - because of how marginal some of the remaining seats are. Jeremy Hunt would have lost his seat if they had AV because all of the greens and labor votes would likely go the lib dems. And I think reform would not have won its 5th seat because of AV
@@awestruckbeaver3344Labour are a little unpredictable on this. Their members voted in favour of changing the electoral system at the 2022 conference, a quick Google will give the details.
The resolution that passed said it should be in the next manifesto and should be implemented in the first term of a Labour government. It wasn't in the 2024 manifesto though.
I am sure sentiment has recently changed among some, but there is at least a significant group who have supported it in the very recent past.
its not the most proportional, no
Great Grimsby and cleethorpes is the new constituency. I live in waltham which used to be part of cleethorpes in elections however it is now part of brigg and immingham. Martin Vickers, the old tory mp for cleethorpes is now the tory mp for brigg and immingham
Something similar happened in kosovo during the 2021 elections and everyone was shocked
Or you have a primary system and then the candidates who got the two largest shares of the votes have a run off election.
That's just the french system (but their second rounds can have up to 4 candidates) and it's just the second worst electoral system possible
"the conservatives and reform and maybe the dup in there too" the government was literally a conservative-dup coalition between 2017 and 2019
There was some discussion about a Canada 1993 situation but there's more parallels to Canada 2019 with some notable exceptions. While that elections saw the governing party get a minority, the overall dynamic saw the major parties getting a third of the popular vote and a move towards smaller parties.
As an American though, I've thought of the Electoral College working very similar to a parliamentary system. The election occurs across 50 states and DC for the person the votes go to. And theoritically, there is that coalition building should any candidate fail to get a majority of electoral votes. In practice though, the two party system makes the outcome more decisive due to the FPTP which manufactures a majority. And I do mean manufacture because the result isn't inherently tied to the number of votes each candidate gets.
the UK had a referendum on the alternative vote in 2011 and voted it down by a 2-1 margin. as an American I just have to ask- what the hell were you guys thinking?
14.3% of the vote and only 0.8% of the seats is messed up. LibDems got 11.1% of the vote and 12.2% of the seats
It's the opposite 12.2 percent of the the vote and 11.1 percent of the seats, they won almost every target seat and still got scammed
@@Fly_Slo my mistake
0:00 rishi got that "It's sunover" face
So let me see if I'm understanding this correctly: there's more than 2 parties in the UK?
Okay, I'm confused.
We should campaign for a ranked voting system similar to the Alaskan ranked voting system.
Imagine less than 20% of the population voting for the next leader. At this point may as well implement mandatory voting
baahahahaha imagine the english outrage in an alternate universe where sturgeon was deputy prime minister
*its
irt the uncertainty of electing coalition governments, I think one benefit of the presidential/committee legislature system is that there is more certainty/stability in terms of government/administration because it's elected independently from the legislature - and as well individual laws can be passed with internal negotiations in committee that don't require a political coalition that could fall apart if negotiations don't work out.
FPTP and single winner constituencies are not the same. Australia has STV for constituencies to guarantee 50% of people living there support the candidate who they voted for (NOT a potential prime minister - though the people they vote for will vote for a PM) vs the competition, and then the senate is elected via PR to make sure that smaller parties that have national support but dont win seats are still able to reflect the will of the people who preferenced them first.
"we've got Mongolia level voter turn-out" 🤣 ... this is why I subscribe to ibx2cat !
Plaid cymru policy is to make everywhere wales
Decolonize Brythonia
that is not the left right situation at all at 6:10
my god it couldnt be more wrong 😂
Reform are probably centrist maybe right leaning so are the dup the conservatives are socialists and the rest are edging on far left.
Toycat confirmed to live above a halal butchers, the rumours were true
tbh i think this system is alright people also vote for their mp in their constituency
Reminds me of the Quebec election results
I didn't expect the Minecraft Bedrock youtuber to have such an informed view of Politics.
Then again, he might not expect that from someone else that WATCHES minecraft youtubers either. Like myself.
Good words video guy.
Unfortunately, not party that ever gets in is ever incentivised to change the voting system, because they just recently benefited from it
Wait the green party blocks high speed trains and solar panels?
British people: Voted against alternative vote methods in a referendum aimed to address unfairness in elections.
Also British people: The election results are so unfair!
My big problem with proportional representation is that it seems often the parties with the most seats are beholden to a few extreme parties with 5 or 6 to avoid collapsing the coalition
You can combine representative voting with FPTP. The Hungarian system is a very good one in that aspect that it gives the bigger parties extra seats over the fully proportional ones, but small parties who can’t win individual districts still get in (although underrepresented).
Most of the time, major political parties actively avoid working with extreme parties, see cordon sanitaire
@@realGBx64😂 isn't Hungary a defacto one party state controlled by Viktor Orban?
@@jonathanbowers8964No, it’s not. It’s a liberal democratic parliamentary republic which uses MMP. The fact that Orban’s coalition is popular and western leftists (and the EU) don’t like him, doesn’t mean it’s a “one party state”.
Except Obran manipulates the Hungarian media to keep his image.
Yeah, and also Labor and the Conservatives at this point are basically the same party. The Democrats in the US are more left wing than Labor, which tells you A LOT about how far they've fallen
sdp doesnt look too left wing when actually considering their policies
My preferred way of solving "You don't vote for a coalition" is to modify proportional system ballots to actually "vote for a coalition". There are ranked ballot proportional representation systems but it seems they are only used in Australia. How ballots are actually ranked can be a guidelines on what coalitions voters would prefer.
In FPTP + two-party systems, it is possible to have diverse political positions within a large party but in practice voting within a party is undemocratic since parties can set their own rules on how policies are set and how party leaders are elected (members vs. delegates), and political party members are rare and tend to hold extreme beliefs. Party leadership elections might be more democratic if they are end-to-end organized as if they were general elections (registered voters can be a member of one party, voting day for leadership elections, no electronic voting, legally defined voting system and same for every party's leadership election, etc.).
FPTP making no mathematical sense (especially with respect to incremental changes in vote distribution as this election shown and having counter-intuitive behaviors with respect to 2D spaces of political positions ("Yee diagram")) is actually my biggest reason for not wanting FPTP.
Change to single transferable vote + proportional
What party did toycat vote?
The best party
The monster raving loony party for sure.
The Hungarian system is an interesting one to consider: there is FPTP for constituencies, there are party lists, and compensation for candidates not getting in with FPTP. It is more proportional than clean FPTP, but still gives disproportionate representation for the larger parties, guaranteeing stable government.
If we didn’t just have one large party and a lot of small ones (it if we had two rounds as we used to before 2010), it would work really well.
you forgot to mention that we had a referendum on the AV system in 2011 - although I imagine the results would be quite different now with more support for minor parties
Liverpool is so Labour, if they started lining up people to be sh*t, there'd be people queue jumping to be first. And I say that as a Liverpudlian myself. Interestingly, on the opposite end of the spectrum, Liverpool seems to have a large number (as in second to Labour) of Reform voters, which most probably wouldn't expect.
BOOTLE MENTION ON TOYCAT RAAAAA
So the market responded positively because markets initially respond to calm. Will Labour make things better economically? Of course debatable. Do markets like a solid majority where they can predict their next steps based on months of prep work? Abso-lutely
Britian has the same system as India now
Don't want coalitions the only option is a two-party system. If there is ever a third choice, there is always the possibility that no party can reach majority after an election. Not that a 1 seat majority with no coalitions leads to more stable government than a coalition with a combined large majority. Overwhelming majority leads to stable government and you can get that with any system
I don't really mind this system it means usually nothing changes. Untill it's blatantly obvious to a majority of people in more than half the country (A lot of different places) that things must change. A very high bar but achievable as we can see. Severe accidents by the electorate cannot happen.
Free Willy mentioned !!! \o/
Love your videos mate - but could you just learn the pronouncation of plaid cymru - pla I d cymru - say the I like "I am leaving"
I'm a little clueless as to the Presidential election. Seems like there is a Party Ticket. I understand all the individual races. And many states restrict who can be on the ballot and enforce a cut-off time for names. So, how can we still be talking about WHO is running? And will we be voting for someone in jail or the one in an old-folks' home?
In Italy we had full proportional voting system and 80+ % of electors went to vote. They said majoritary system was better and we went to shit. (obviously it's more complex and nuanced but it was a bad change and they still change the law every election)
Hi from South Africa.
1. You do NOT want PR Lists of any kind... there is 0 accountability of politicians/ parties.
2. Consider instead MD-LL, which is 100% proportional, yet you get to keep constituencies , albeit double the size (but with 2 MPs per).
DM for details
3. Should you not like MD-Ll, there's MM-PR system used for SA's local government* elections, where both votes are always counted.
* different from the German version, avoiding its tactical voting & resultant overhang seat phenomenon.
Explain MD-LL? I can't find it online
You can influence party lists, many countries use an open list system so there still is accountability. Also UK parties already sort of do this as only they can choose candidates unlike primary systems in the US.
@BritishRepublicsn MD-LL (Mixed Dual Localised List) is based on the MM-PR we use in South Africa (local govnt), excep instead of closed PR lists (i.e. det. by party bosses) localised lists LL are used instead.
LLists are lists ranking each party's candidates based on the no. of votes they receive in constituencies.
Procedure;
1. Voters are issued with 2 ballots (candidate & party preferences) just as in MM-PR. Proportionality is also calculated in the same manner (using all the ballots cast, unlike Germany).
2. Each constituency will have 2 MPs (in the UK's case 325 constituencies) . The fist 'tier 1 MP' will be the winner of the FPTP contest, the second 'tier 2' MP will be a losing candidate who received enough votes to be in an electable position on their respective party's LL list.
3. There is also an allocation process and a mechanism to deal with super majorities & 'safe' seats where parties get enough votes to win both seats in a constituency.
MD-LL isn't online, but I'm happy to share the specifics with anyone.
p.s. I need to learn how to make videos explaining all this 😂
In German federal elections and in EU elections the lists are set by the party but in the state election (at least here in Bavaria) you can choose one of the candidates from the list which means the voters can change the order.
@Stjorn the problem with open lists are that they are prohibitively expensive for individual candidates & require large unwieldy ballot papers, which renders them effectively closed lists.
Localised Lists are the way to have proportionality & accountability.
It's weird.
ngl I don't like Sunak's politics, but I do admire and pity his position. He handled it with surprising grace considering how poorly the past ~4 tory prime ministers set things up for him and now he has to be the face of the tories losing
People are sick and tired of politicians and their empty words.
Don't blame me, i voted for Kodos.
Im from liverpool. 20 years old. First election. I voted for reform. I had no idea we where even so labour
Australia has mandatory voting?? That's anti-democratic. The right to not vote is as important as the right to vote. Sure, you can just submit an empty ballot, but it's not the same kind of protestation as not turning up to the voting booths at all, and being counted amongst the didn't turn out crowd to go against it. Also, if you're busy, disabled, or ill then you shouldn't be forced to turn up to the poll station. What, do you need to brandish a sick note from your GP to your local commissar to prove you're too unwell to vote? Pretty sure if you're too unwell to vote, you're too unwell to turn up at the relevant government office to prove you're unwell...
The system doesn’t require you to appear at a polling station; Postal votes can be used for all and don’t require you to physically turn up to any government office, even to register.
@@parwinner
That's more susceptible to fraud.
i thought you did minecraft lol?
the title of this video is "The UK's Election Was It's Most Uneven EVER" even though it should be "The UK's Election Was *Its* Most Uneven EVER"!! plz fix
oops haha
One of many issues with FPTP is even if most people want a left-wing government they are forced to pick labour to have a chance, meanwhile, if you want a more right-wing you have to pick the Conservatives. If you're a radical centrist you like the LibDems.
Even in countries with PR you still see the centre-left/right blocks take the lion's share of votes, however, every now and again they get into bed with a more radical left/right-wing party and make compromises. I feel this offers a much more amicable type of politics where people with different opinions must compromise rather than win every election with a fuck off majority which they won with around a 3rd of the vote and use that "majority" to beat out what 2/3rds of the country wanted. Maybe the centre-left party needs 10 seats to have a majority but, their slightly more lefty green party agrees to support the government if the government commits to preventing the sale of Petrol/Diesel Cars by 2027 instead of 2030 as per the current plan.
Comments like "I didn't vote for a coalition" are pretty pointless, you didn't vote for a PM or a national government, just one MP, that sure you hope is part of the government maybe, but that's not what you were choosing when you voted, further, as the current system is a majority of people DIDN'T vote for the government they got, let alone the government they did want, plus some bonus members from a party which they most likely agree with somewhat. or their party that had no chance of winning nationally, gets a seat at the big table and gets to have an actual impact.
One complaint I have heard is that it removes MPs from their local area to solve this, you could merge constituencies so that there was a target pop of 225K instead of 75K, you'd carry out an election much like now except you'd get 3 votes (or RCV for a party instead of a person), every time a party reached 33% of the vote they'd get to send an MP to the commons. If you had Party A with 66% of the vote once RCV was considered, they'd send 2 candidates and if Party B got 33% they'd send one. I am not sure this would be better/worse than it is now, but, it would achieve what's being asked.
I am an american and ive been following the uk election season because i find it fascinating that you have more than 2 political parties. But jesus christ, what happened to reform and greens is actually criminal.
Every fifth person in your electorate voted for a party that is sharing 2% of the power.
Arguably even less than 2% of the power because the winner take all also works within the total seat count, lol
The real Mind fck is that even when you do arrive at the correct conclusion that Free Will doesn't exist you were inevitably going to arrive at that conclusion! :D What people fail to understand though is that even without Free Will you are STILL 'experiencing' things for the first time! So even though you may be on a Roller-coaster you can STILL enjoy the ride!
A situation where 4 Million Votes results in 5 Seats but 3.5 Million gets you 76 Seats is CLEARLY NOT democratically representative!
Being able to 'Strategize' your way into Power should NOT be a thing. It undermines the idea of everybody's vote being equal AND puts the power into the hands f those with Money and able to campaign and strategize more!
SDP voters would have preferred Reform to Labour, despite the name it appeals primarily to disaffected Tories.
UK, just copy the Swiss system.
PR, but with a constant stable goverment/executive that represents the people and a parliament that finds coalitions per topic instead of for building a government.
has anyone told you that you look like tubbo
Just remember, when this labour government are thinking about how they will vote on a policy, they will be voting for what they think the people who voted for them will like, will consider if what they vote for might bring round the people who didn't vote for them last time...
and they will think very clearly about the kind of people who did not vote and will consider exactly how much can be extracted from them and will even consider if making them even more angry will actually further prevent them from voting.
I'm curious about voter turnout in absolute numbers
Yeah, I really do believe that a great deal of electoral and constitutional reform is needed. My personal political beliefs aligns closer with the Liberal Democrats, however as I wanted to ensure that the Conservative's where to be tossed out, I voted Labour because they where the Party in my constituency that was polling highest, with both the Liberal Democrats and Labour encouraging tactical voting.
However, likewise, the argument for FPTP is still quite alive. It usually ensures strong majority governments, limits the rise of more extreme/destabilizing parties such as Reform or formerly UKIP as they would need broad support across many constituencies to get a large amount of seats in Parliament and to be completely frank, the political situation in the UK for someone solely focused on British politics might seem awful, however our politics again are generally more stable and produce results than most nations with proportional representation like Germany. I see the arguments both for and against, I think what this vote showed is that the electorate was mostly divided between those who voted Labour usually tactically purely to get rid of the Conservatives, and then the others where voting for third parties in their area was tactically plausible or who just wanted to show disgruntlement with the current two major political parties. As much as I dislike Farage, he is right in saying that 2029 will be very, very different to now and in my opinion I feel both Reform and the Liberal Democrats may be able to have larger influence and gains by then.
Why do sinn fein not take their seats?
Because they would have to swear allegiance to the king before they can take their seats, and they don’t recognise the kings’ authority in Northern Ireland.
You should do a political compass test