Looking through the comments it seems that a number of people think this video is in some way bias towards a specific ideology. If the system were to change to PR then smaller parties from both sides of the aisle would benefit - the Brexit Party, the Lib Dems and the Greens would all pick up a significant number of additional seats. In fact as we mentioned towards then end of the video parties across the political divide are calling for changes. In fact the Brexit Party's manfiesto contains some of the most radical constitutional changes. Essentially my point is that highlighting the way the electoral system works isn't bias towards either side. Parties from both sides would benefit. Parties from both sides advocated for it. You're more than welcome to disagree with PR, but to say that it's only being suggested because Labour lost is untrue. The Brexit Party have more to gain from PR than Labour do and that's why their manifesto is full of constitutional changes.
The problem with your failure of an attack on your electoral system is that if the electoral system would be different, the campaigns would be different, resulting in different votes, therefore associating the current numbers of votes with a different electoral system is ill advised at best, or flat out dishonest at worst. I'm not sure whether you're incompetent, or malicious, but judging by that you claiming you're being swamped with accusations of pro-uklabour party bias, while me not seeing that (instead, I find a lot of people complaining a missing link to a survey, which I don't exactly understand, since it's literally the second line at the time of writing of this comment saying "Survey:*link*") I'm slowly veering towards dishonesty.
It must be added that people have voted with first past the post in mind, meaning that under a different voting system votes for smaller parties would increase, this means that the current system is less rapresentative than data might suggest EDIT: my intention is not to say one system is better or one is worse, I'm not even british so I have no way of knowing what would work for the UK, I just wanted to say that the data in the video doesn't reflect the fact that changing the voting system also changes how people approach voting
@@kOubrecht see it like this. Why would you vote for a party thaf YOU KNOW wont ever win a seat were you are. Even if your there biggest supporter. So you either dont vote at all, because whats the point. Or you vote for the party that your the least against... to maybe keep the one you hate out.
@@kOubrecht For sure they would. It's the reason Lib Dem and Brexit Party have such a strong number of MEPs. People know that every single vote counts. Even if your whole constituency is 60-70% one party, your vote can still get another party representing you.
Also worth noting though, there'd be a significant amount of people that didn't vote for any party cos they're in an area that is 80% one party, for example if you're area is voting 80% Labour every year you might not bother going to the polls to vote Labour cos you know(/think) that they're going to win in your area anyway so why bother voting for them so it wouldn't just be minor parties gaining votes from a reworked system
The voting behavior would have changed as well with a proportional system. I know plenty of people that voted a certain way because their vote wouldn't matter otherwise. (mainly labour or conservative)
Also, the behavior of MPs wouldn't be the same if they get the seat through proportional system. Every MPs will have to follow a party line no matter how terrible the decisions or the orders are because the party is the one choosing who get to be an MP. So, basically people can only vote for party and party choose who get to be an MP. This ultimately gave party leader a power of dictatorship within a party and MP is no longer has to take care of people in their constituency because MP seat won't be link to them.
True, but proportional representation would be awful for local politics. We use FPTP because it is the best compromise between streamlined National and representative local policy. Our MPs represent the majority vote of the people in their constituency and it prevents population centres such as cities from disproportionately affecting results on the national scale. It’s not a perfect system but there are definitely drawbacks to PR that people often overlook.
@@Bushflare You could reform the other part of your parliament into a chamber that represents the regions, like in the US the senate presents the states. This way, you'd still have a corrective for that. Also: I'd like to see some data on how important that "local representative" thingy really is. Isn't the reality that most people don't vote the person, but because they are in the party the people want to support?
@@Bushflare You could vote regional but then give than compensate the seats got by the bigger parties with just more seats for smaller parties, so at the end its representative regional and also proportional to the vote of the people
In NZ the MMP system has never resulted in one party winning an absolute majority, it encourages parties to work together, find a middle ground as well as be more proportional
Yer but Winston Peter's and NZ first with only 7.2% of the vote became King maker. So a party with 7.2% of the vote chose the PM. I'm not in favor of first past the post but I dont like NZs system either. I like Australias system, everyone gets two single transferable votes one for the House of Representatives (House of commons) with signal member constituencies and the 2nd vote is for the Senate (House of Lords) elected by Proportional representation from party lists.
Mathew Harty i think that majorities are more healthy for a culture. People get angry when nothing they voted for gets done ever because everything has to be a compromise.
Too bad it didn't stop the National party (ill-advisedly) bleating like sheep that "the election was stolen" from them, simply because they got the largest proportions of votes xD That's not how it works under MMP National!! Regardless of one thinks of that, as you say MMP encourages working together and better proportionally represent the electorate
It doesn’t always means that it’ll better though. Thailand has a similar voting system, but the parliament is still very divided, just about a week ago the opposition coalition staged a walkout and halted the government.
@@jjosephs6521 I also do like the Australian system. Thank you for pointing out that disadvantage with MMP, i forgot to point out that when I wrote the comment. (I haven't really thought this through properly) It's also important to have minority groups represented in government and MMP can help that particularly if the government doesn't have anyway else to do that
In Ireland we use single transferable vote and we haven't had a majority government in about 50 years , which is more amazing when you realize that we've only had a parliament for 100 years
And despite CJ Haughey, I would contend that the Irish political system actually works better than the British one. It's more focused on consensus and doesn't have massive shifts in policies after an election with a change of government.
This is a good thing in ireland, the Dáil is actually representing the people there's still big enough parties that will usually be in government but you also have small parties and even independents who get in to represent the people
@@davidthomas5261 parties that benefit from PR want it , those that don't oppose it ,the conservatives in the UK have been in government for a decade but have never won the popular vote , if there was PR they would at the very least have had to be in a coalition for this whole time and they value staying in power above everything else so they obviously don't want it
Go check out the history of the Israeli Knesset... they've NEVER HAD A MAJORITY w/out a coalition... Here in the US, we have to make our coalitions before the voting, which means moar principle and less strategy. I'm a Republican, which is the third party ever since 1864... we buried the fuckin' Whigs.
If you want to know more about this topic and why FPTP is the worst electoral system imaginable, you should have a look at CGP Grey's series on different voting systems. (They are explained by using a made-up "animal kingdom" to avoid any real world analogies.)
Australia uses Single Transferrable Vote, and I'm pretty happy with it. It means you can vote for who you genuinely want in power, without having to second-guess the result or vote tactically. Edit: Soz we use preferential instant-runoff voting to elect the lower house, my bad.
Australia's preferential voting system still at the end of the day benefits the two big parties. For example in the last Federal Election the Greens got 11% of the National vote in the House of Representatives but only got 0.66% of the seats. The Senate system is much better though
@@Petreon360 just adding to that, the National party got just over 8% of the vote, netting them 23 seats so they polled less and received 23x as many seats as the greens? the issue with the current system isnt in preferential voting - its in the division of electorates (and then obviously the influence of major donors and media)
Our system in Australia works well because the upper house is done different to the lower house. So we have a bit or an each way bet. Meaning that we're likely to get a Majority in the Lower house, but it's rare in the upper. The UK with their house of lords don't get this chance. In addition our Govenor General has the guts to sack the government as the ultimate safety valve.
Also writing from Australia here. I feel that some form of proportional representation is best _however_ the preferential method we use here for our _single-member_ electorates is still _way_ better than what they do in the UK. The candidates that win are those preferred by the majority in any given electorate. If proportional representation is too daring for the UK then they could at least consider preferential.
Germany has a pretty cool system where you cast two votes; one for a party and one for a candidate. In Sweden we vote for a party with a list of candidates, but have the ability to select one candidate lower on the list to vote that candidate up. So in both systems there are a proportional party representation but the voters also have the ability to select their favourite candidate. Most (if not all?) European countries have proportional representation. The UK is the odd one (as per usual).
The two vote system has two issues: Parties making party politics for the second vote, instead of making it clear that this is a vote for local representative in Berlin (see FDP campaigns for reference what I mean). The "Überhangmandate" are are mess in its own right and there where proven cases, where less party votes would be lead to more party seats because of the math of the Überhangmandate. And also see FDP for an example on how the second vote can screw over proportional representation in favor of party politics (If the FDP would have campaigned for their candidate, that would be fine. But they as a party had the party slogan "First Vote CDU, Second Vote FDP" - and that is antidemocratic nonsene).
I'd remind you that it wouldn't be "Hung Parliaments" anymore, it'll be the norm and coalitions would be perfectly normal, like it is in most European countries.
In Spain no one knows who their MP is and all the parties, including the small ones, show a loathsome disdain for their voters. They have had years of bitter discussions in trying to arrive at a workable government and people are even more pissed off about their politicians than they are in the UK. The far right Vox party has substantial representation in the Cortes.
@@jasonpreater6220 That’s hardly (solely) due to the electoral system. Governments can be just as dysfunctional under FPTP systems (look at the UK and US...) and other PR-governed countries don’t necessarily have Spain’s current problems Also, while the notion of having a specific MP based in where you live is one of the more solid arguments for FPTP, the problem with safe seats means that “your MP” may not give a toss about your concerns if you happen not to be part of the solid voter bloc in your constituency, which is also a big criticism of FPTP. This “knowing your MP” concept is simply less relevant in PR systems, as the main concern of voters tend to be with a party, rather than a single, local MP. However, the local aspect is not entirely lost, as most PR systems tend to combine geographically defined seats with “bonus seats”, with the latter reflecting all those votes that “wouldn’t count” in a FPTP system. As for Vox being present in the Cortes, are you saying that a system where the views of voters aren’t being represented is totally fine - as long as it’s happening to political parties you don’t like? And no, I don’t like Vox either.
Just gonna put this out there: Norway and Finland regularly have hung parliaments and coalition governments and they are regularly rated the HAPPIEST places on the planet!
A really important effect of this that you don’t address is that people would vote differently in a proportional system. The Greens, for example, would get more seats based on their current share of the vote and they would probably *also* see an increase in that share of the vote, as people would no longer feel that it was a ‘wasted’ vote.
The Colonel There’s no legitimacy in an electoral system that is skewed against whichever parties happen to trigger us. There’s also a very real possibility that far right parties will be emboldened by PR, but that’s the price of truly representative democracy. You can’t deal with radicalism by brushing it under the carpet. Right now we have a landslide administration which is nonetheless a minority party. Whether you or I like the Conservatives under Johnson is immaterial, the fact is, nearly 60% of the electorate don’t.
@The Colonel Under FPTP every government is effectively a fringe government. You say that there are compromises in every democratic system, but if you have a zero-sum game "winner takes all" system, as the UK (and almost nobody else) does, there IS no need for compromise. If anything, post-war politics in the developed world show that PR does more to push governments to the centre than FPTP does. In GE2019, 57% of the UK electorate has been reduced to the role of impotent and bemused spectatorship because a political party that simply has no meaning to them have won an artificial landslide due to the peculiarities of our electoral system. This isn't necessarily a criticism of either Johnson or the English Conservative party per se; this situation would be just as alarming if the Labour Party had again assumed power under similar circumstances, as they did in each of their election victories in the 2000's. British politics operates under the illusion of consensus. The UK has gone back and forward between governments that are either futher to the left or (mostly) the right than any of our world peers, and this has been to the detriment of the UK. In the rest of the democratic world beyond the US and UK, PR has created an effective centre-ground that is largely social democratic, and the UK and US are now floundering because of their over-factionalised approach to political parties, and a fixation with a failed monetarist ideology that presumes that markets alone create morality, better infastructure and social cohesion. In the Anglo-Saxon world political affiliations have become part of people's identity; in the rest of the world, politicians occupy a merely technocratic role that governs from the centre, utilising - but light-touch regulating - open markets, which we know to be empirically necessary. The political writer Alexis de Tocqueville once noted that effective politics and effective politicians should largely be dull; in the Anglo-Saxon world, we've become too addicted to the politics of spectacle as a source of meaning and identity.
@The Colonel 1. The rise of populism in Europe has been overstated by the UK press; 2. The notion of a left-wing dominance in European Politics is illusory; the EU is neoliberal and light-touch free markets won the ideological war three decades ago; even the Scandinavian countries have liberalised their markets and reduced their tax burden. 3. As disagreeable as political correctness is, there is simply no such thing as cultural marxism. Postmodernism and dialectical materialism are antithetical to each other. it is a tautological buzzword that has no meaning whatsoever.
Flamin' Cat because the country needs to come together after being divided by brexit it now needs a stable government that is able up function properly
Mostly because of things like what has been happening during Brexit where politicians don't discuss or work together at all and instead kick and drag their stubborn heels in temper tantrums that last 3 years
@@richardhills6952 Hung parliament is not a term invented for Brexit. along with that how would you imagine people coming together for a decision like this? " I voted for party X but since party z won thanks to the system I will still be in a position, thanks to their decision making that will be terrible for me". Yeah, sure
People get angry when they never get anything they ever vote for. Pr actually removes choice from voters and puts it all in the hands of a few professional politicians that decide who works together. In pr you get what you want less of the time because you don’t decide policy even if you vote for the king makers.
As well as what people have said in this thread, in the UK party voters often consider it a betrayal should their party enter into a coalition with another party.
Don't really see how you can say the "discussion about electoral reform has really begun" - when there was a referendum on changing the voting system in 2011. Sure electoral reform is a positive thing - but it is not a new thing.
A vote that failed because most people didn’t care about it at the time. These days I’m hearing far more ordinary people talking about electoral reform, it’s not just political wonks
@@WhichDoctor1 Don't forget that it wasn't proportional representation that was being offered, we were fobbed off with the "alternative vote" as it was called, no one wanted it so not surprising no one cared about it.
The local constituency link is a myth. I suspect that most MP's are parachuted into their constituency and only live there once elected. My MP having been parachuted in spends most of his time in london and his "local office number" is now a london one, where he hangs out with his bit of stuff on the side.
Well my MP is really awesome, almost always responds to letters, has weekly surgeries where anyone can talk to her, and actually represents us in parliament. Maybe you should vote in a new MP.
One answer to to this is to have meaningful residency requirements such as a minimum of 3-5 years having your primary residence in the district before you can run for office. Carrier politicians would hate it but it would be better for the people.
Being local doesn't necessarily solve the problem. The SNP MP who just got elected in my constituency was previously our MP from 2015-2017, and she was an awful representative of the local area despite living just down the road. Sometimes politicians are just incompetent lmao
The referendum failed because they wanted to change it to another shitty system. It was deliberate, they didn't want to change the system and they knew perfectly well people would vote against the one they suggested.
@@starlinguk the system they were changing it too would've been better. It's just the government put out a shit ton of what basically amounted to propaganda because they didn't want the system to change.
@@starlinguk I read up on the 2011 vote to AV (is still better than FPTP but not by much), and for that vote Labour abstained from either side because they found that the Tories had snuck in a clause which allowed them to change constituency boundaries, which essentially meant that if AV was adopted they could gerrymander the votes), and the entire vote was poisoned by the Tories lmfao
@@CM-db5cg FPTP serves the big two parties the best, so of course they were against it. The only reason we have what we call a "two party system" is an artifact of the travesty that is FPTP. Any system that wastes as many votes as is mentioned in this video is not worthy of being called a democratic system
The problem with a lot of PR systems is that they give to much power to who ever gets to draw up the lists for who will be the parties MPs if they get enough votes. Giving MPs dual loyalties. That's why Single Transferable Vote is the best. It keeps local MPs, whilst making it more proportional and more competitive, so MPs have to work to keep their seats.
@@Quintinohthree Even if the list are open they still have a lot of influence. Say Boris got to decide on the Conservative party list. Then if any Conservative MPs said they were going to voted against him on some bill he could threaten to lower them on the list. Any voting system needs to make sure that the only opinion MPs care about is that of their voters.
Let’s acknowledge for a moment the difficulties in changing voting systems in democracies. Let’s also acknowledge the importance of continuing to advocate ALL PARTIES on the issue. If you want to know why Canada didn’t get much movement on electoral reform.....ask the CPC- they have the most to lose from proportional systems (because they have the most to gain from status quo) and therefore refused to budge. But let’s just blame PM Trudeau, that’s better.
john Stewart lol. It’s the CPC who get the majority of the benefit in the current system and therefore they have the most to lose. But nice try blaming PM Trudeau, but the facts don’t support you. Especially when you look at how the CPC all but blocked movement on the issue.
@@bartwilson2513 Since the CPC won the popular vote in 2019 they stand to gain the most from a purely PR system then? Although I suppose the Liberals would enter into a formal coalition with the NDP.
Here’s the thing: You don’t vote for the Conservatives or Labour,. You vote for Mary Smith, who happens to be a Conservative, or Bill Jones, who happens to be Labour. It’s entirely possible that Mary Smith wins your constituency of Bumblefuck East because she’s such a great person, but that dastardly Bob Green, the Conservative candidate in Bumblefuck West, is someone you wouldn’t piss on if he were on fire. So combining vote totals by party is very misleading.
That was true four hundred years ago, but due to televisions and other forms of mass media and the increasing organisation and power of parties, the parties and their leaders are far more prominent in the public consciousness, so a constituency based system is less reflective of popular will and practical reality.
The Colonel Exactly. All those northerners who went blue last week talked about how “metropolitan” Labour had become. I happen to think that was a pretty invalid reason to change their votes, but there you have it. Well a PR system would accelerate Labour’s movement in that direction quite rapidly. Ditto the Tories, who are, as the northerners will soon learn, more “metropolitan” still. If the country’s not homogeneous, and people are determined to make an issue of geographic differences, constituencies are essential to keep national parties responsive to that trend. Otherwise only myopic regional parties have a chance.
Speederzzz Well, two MPs were recalled by their constituents this year, triggering by-elections. One of those by-elections returned a different candidate from the same party. The other switched parties by a narrow margin, but switched back in the general election. In both cases party loyalty remains a going concern. So why bother recalling an MP if personality is irrelevant?
proportional representation is awful it has been destroying my country for the last decade with terrible coalition govts and is not democratic at all actually it excludes rural communities and other minorities from having a say
@@drummingtildeath its not my only take away, but it is the obvious conclusion that comes out of the metric and it is not even discussed. The SNP being "over-represented" and the Libs being "under-epresented" are two sides of the same coin. The argument that PR will make everything better is flawed.
Yes it is because the Scottish constituencies are disproportionate to English ones. It's so to satisfy Scottish desire for higher representation (Scotland 5 milion inh, England 55 milion inh) as otherwise Scottish MP would never be able to pass anything in HoS. Actually if the representation of Scotland was to be reduced Scotland would probably outright leave the Union and perhaps they should in the end.
I think that there is also a huge difference on how a voter thinks when seats are awarded proportionally. If you support a smaller candidate in your area that has no chance of winning, it still makes sense voting for him. Whereas if the winner gets all, you can sit at home or spoil because the only difference you make is that the winner gets unmeasurably lower proportion.
There is no accountability with Proportional Representation. With First Past the Post, I can actively vote to remove an MP from their seat, as I did this last election, helping to turn my seat from red to blue, with PR, I could not do that.
If you want to see the worst part of FPTP, watch the US presidential primaries...and how little of a percentage is needed to get *all* electoral votes in the primary :(
Nicole K It was on AV as the new system which is definitely not the choice many want in terms of PR. Also the campaign was a bit of a mess when you look into the campaign itself.
Russian Bot, UK Division Of course it isn’t a good advert in that regard, but it was Cameron fulfilling their want for a PR voting system referendum by giving them (possibly) the most unwanted PR system. But we also have to remember the coalition government did serve a full five years in government, which by that time was technically a full term under the Fixed Term Parliaments Act.
@@kazwalker764 You'd be complaining if Labour had won. You can't just accept non-democratic practices because your favourite won. That's bordering on fascism.
@@starlinguk Hah, quite a bit of projection in your post... I live in a country that has FPTP (Canada), and my preferred party lost because of it, but won the popular vote. I still think Canada should keep the FPTP system so that rural voters are fairly represented. I even live in one of the largest cities and was raised in one. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 Leftist idiot.
@@starlinguk I get what you’re trying to say but: 1: FPTP is non-representative on a national scale, but representative on the local scale. It is not non-democratic. 2: It is nowhere even close to Fascism.
Your original premise is wrong. If Labour had achieved the Conservatives percentage they would have achieved a majority of 160. The electorate doesn't want to reform the system as demonstrated in 2011. Why? The electorate wants a government to lead not the mess that we have had since 2017 which would be the result of a proportional system. Which would also wipe out independent MPs completely.
It probably isn't entirely true that you would get the same mess with a proportional system. The reason it was a mess is because parties didn't want to accept a compromise due to the fact that compromises are harshly punished in a FPTP system. In a proportional system this is often not the case. Because parties don't get as harshly punished, compromises become more prevalent, thus not ending up in the same mess as you have had. This is examplified in the many countries that have these kinds of voting systems and where it isn't a mess.
You and all your facts and history, and correct reasoning... You're forgetting that TLDR is hard left. Hence: "butt muh democracy". I for one, am enjoying the new high sodium videos. 🤣🤤
I am an expat in The Hague (South-Holland). The last elections of the Prov. Of South-Holland (The Hague, Rotterdam) were won by the fascist FvD, second was the more moderate right VVD, but they were clearly also campaigning to get the far right-wing voters. And not to talk about little reactionair Christian parties who also got some percent of the votes. It is a madhouse. A political system like in the UK, would even be a bigger disaster here.
@@mrid5850 There isn't a formal election threshold in the Netherlands, true. However, for the national election you still need to get 1/150 of the total amount of votes cast to get a seat in parliament. So there is an unofficial threshold.
@@PGraveDigger1 True, though this is the case with every proportional voting system in an indirect democracy as you always have to divide the total number of votes cast by the amount of seats in parliament. Don't get me wrong, I like the fact that there isn't a electoral threshold, it makes it just that bit more democratic. Though it is a shame that some smaller parties like FvD can come into parliament. But that's democracy as well, appearantly there is a demand for such a party so it is only democratic that those people also get a voice.
@@luxembourger how is it a madhouse? It is simply a representation of what people want. Think of the UK Labour party as an example: there was little to no consensus within the party on brexit but there was little room to split.up into separate parties as would have happened in NL. If there had been proportional voting, pro-brexit or anti-brexit MPs would have been able to feasibly split from their parties and form a government together, based on whichever stance has a majority: MPs are nor locked into parties and parties are not locked in quite as much. Flexibility is the result, not a stalemate per se
There is one thing that I think that we need is an independent electoral commission, separate from parliament and able to stand up to governmental pressure.
@@Quintinohthree By being a neutral referee to enforce the rules certainly will help representation by preventing big party bullying. Also some of the other proposals need to be made law.
Ah, then you must have misunderstood. By voting Boris Johnson into power with a large majority, you have given up all independent institutions, and employee and environmental protection. Expect politically appointed judges, making it illegal to contradict the government, making it illegal to leak information, and redistricting the map to maximize conservative wins in future elections. The people around Johnson are smart enough to cement their hold onto power into law, use Brexit to get rid of anything standing in their way, and blame the EU and immigrants for any negative consequences.
So in that system there would be relatively no chance of any party having a majority, meaning hardly anything would get done because every party would want something different, done wt this moment we would neither stay nor leave the EU and business would stagnate through a lack of forward planning. Or is that wrong?
Parties would need to compromise and build coalitions with other parties to form a majority that then governs. The result is less black/white and more colorful or grey tones. Less extreme and more moderated. Less crazy and more stable.
@@Quintinohthree I'm sorry but i have to disagree with that point, it is only my opinion but i feel less people would be happy with what i feel would be total mediocrity and inertia.
@@davidlewis5780 Good luck disagreeing with reality. By and large voters in proportional systems are happier with their electoral systems and feel more represented than in systems which exclusively employ single-member constituencies.
I've been campaigning for a change to the FPTP system for quite a few years now. Those of you in the UK looking for an organisation linked to pressuring the government to change the way we elect our MP's should check out Electoral Reform UK, where we push towards implementing the Single Transferable Vote (we are open to other systems though!)
I'm just heartbroken that SNP didn't get a clear majority.... Us Jacobites have no choice but to invade again. We'll be led by our Bonny Prince Patrick Stewart and his adopted son Jon "Leibowitz" Stewart.
Also most people aren't voting for who they want to lead the country, they're voting for whoever they think is the least worst out of conservatives and labour
If the election used proportionate regional lists (1 list each for England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland containing the current equivalent number of constituencies) the result would be: 283 Conservatives 210 Labour 75 Liberal Democrats 26 SNP 17 Green Party 14 Brexit Party 6 DUP 5 Plaid Cymru 4 Sinn Fein 3 Alliance 3 SDLP 2 UUP 2 UKIP
I love it when people who live under a parliamentary system make fun of the electoral college we have in the US. "ThEy WoN wItHoUt WiNnInG a MaJoRiTY?!?!?!?!? LoL." Who's laughing now?
You also have no voter ID which leads to massive cases of voter fraud, and electoral college means that a couple of large cities on the East and West coast don't get to decide the future of the entire country, especially when those areas have most cases of voter fraud,
The UK should switch to STV, with each constituency being a county, and they send as many MP's as they need to. Keeps the local representation, while providing people with Representatives they can more comfortably interact with.
"hung parliaments" are kinda the point of proportional representation, it actually encourages parties to work together, instead of against one another.
Because the effect generally seen from such a situation is that it becomes extremely hard for a government to get things done. A party who holds the majority could put a policy to vote and effectively be blocked with very few rebel MP's from their own side. This is seen in a lot of the previous Brexit votes and has resulted in the likes of Ken Clark being ousted from the Conservative party.
@@jameslewis2635 The Netherlands hasn't had a party get a majority of the seats in parliament since 1891. We've had proportional representation since 1919. In my opinion, the last 100 years (ignoring WW2) were pretty great for us.
@@jameslewis2635 On the other hand in systems where one party needs to have majority it pretty inevitably leads to extreme polarization of politics, and cooperation is seen as taboo.
On the other hand, recent real world experience casts doubt on that idea. Brexit was all about that situation where parties would have been encouraged to work together, but it didn't really work. They didn't really work together, instead working against each other for years of deadlock.
@@volkris Kind of proves my point. UK uses FPTP system, so parties aren't encouraged to work together on an institutional basis. As such even something of as huge national importance as handling Brexit properly was hijacked by the polarized political system. I would almost guarantee if UK had an election system where parties had been forced to work together in coalition governments then Brexit would already have been done, or would never have happened at all.
End of day. The party with the most votes, got majority. And in each area, the winning candidate with most votes won. Some parties literally do not have enough candidates worth voting for. So it’s silly to put candidates forward that are not suitable for the job, just to give a more proportional balance. If we end up voting for the party as a whole then this reduced the accountability for your local candidate. In essence we would all be voting for a “president”. I think there’s an argument for both systems. No system would be perfect.
Proportional vote does not represent the voters or it is democracy. Proportional is for partitocratic form of government or government for party by the party for the parties. In partitocratic there is no representation or mandate because it is no democracy
There is a lot of people in the comments talking about the Australian system. While Australia's preferential voting system is much better than the UK first past the post system, it however still benifts and maintains the two big party duopoly. For example in the last Federal Election the Greens got got 11% of the National vote but only got 0.6% of the seats.
@@johnstewart3846, LNP: 76,000 per seat. Labor: 69,000 per seat. Greens: 1,483,000 - only 1 seat. How exactly does Greens get more seats than they deserve?
What What yeah I supported it (it’s not as fair as STV would be, but it’s a step in the right direction) and I haven’t yet heard one argument against it except for either “It was a LibDem or Green rig to get them more seats” or “but it’s not real PR”. Technically those are both true but they aren’t actually compressions to choose FPTP over AV.
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but wouldn’t proportional voting essentially drown out the voices of Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland due to population size in comparison with England?
Shh, you're thinking to much. You need to stop thinking and just listen to your feelings. And if you come to another conclusion, you're wrong and need to just agree with whatever the left wing position is.
@@sarowie You still have the situation, where the NSP gets three times fewer votes than the Lib-Dems, but three times more seats. That would not happen in the new system, but it would mean Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland will be under total control from England.
The LibDems are to blame if their coalition had been with labour and not Cameron then there would have been an electoral reform that could have made them a MAJOR party. In fact, you could link all of Britain's problems to silly Nick Clegg.
The Netherlands hasnt had a 1 partij majority in our parliament since 1891 as far as I can see. Every single government since then has been a government formed from a coalition of parties. I dont mean to nationalistically ignorant but the Netherlands is a pretty damn great place... Theres also plenty of other countries who continually have coalitiok governments and are doing really well... So the entire argument of hung parliaments being a problem is bs.
@@charlieg1029 no, not at all, but we created a climate for working together because we had to. Imagine if you guys had done the same. Sure its not going to be effective immediately because youve built up a culture of hostility in your politics but youve got to break through that. Right now you live in an elected dictatorship where 1 party holds both the executive and the lawmaking power. Thats a massive imbalance of influence. The Netherlands is not perfect in this, theres plenty of things wrong with our balance of power but at least there is some scrutiny and control between the executive and lawmaking powers. You dont have any of that.
@@ChrisWalter our political parties? In a similar manner as now. There would be debate, some topics would be devisive and there would be a lot of attempts to try and get a coalition of parties to support a 'Nexit' mandate. Though, afterwards the Netherlands would fail as a country, we rely too much on trade with the EU. Either we crash out and destroy our economy or we lose all influence in the EU and become its bitch.
Electronic/online voting is fine, ASSUMING that you have paper backups that are actively counted as well. As it stands, paper ballots alone are also less accurate and safe then a combination. Lost ballot boxes, fires. Having 2 systems to cross reference makes everything a whole lot better.
@@deefdragon You can't cross-reference systems which are not of themselves reliable. Electronic voting is inherently unreliable, while paper voting can be made almost perfectly reliable. In the end you must rely on paper.
@@deefdragon And congratulations, you've just invented the world's most expensive pencil. Why bother with the online bit if the ballot is automatically printed? Just use the paper version.
What is it with English speaking elections that they are so backwards? I also don’t understand that local issues get mentioned in the PM’s questions. Why aren’t those dealt by by local governments?
@@tobywalker712 I know, but that is a waste of time. It also disrupts the democratic process with that stupid fist past the post. No way in a normal democracy a majority should be achieved through a minority in votes.
We've had four elections in nine years because of hung parliaments, the Commons has done virtually nothing since 2016 because of hung parliaments, the Coalition government of 2010-15 resulted in Lib Dem annihilation at the ballot box, we had a referendum in 2011 to change FPTP to AV rejected by 13 million voters.
"That doesn't mean Boris Johnson doesn't deserve to be in number ten" At first I thought you were going to follow that up with "so here are some reasons that *do* mean he doesn't deserve to" but then I noticed there was only two minutes left
It seems unfair that, despite the fact that the majority of people in the country did not vote for the Tories, they now have a large majority and absolute power. Only one person in five voted Tory. There is a strong case for proportional representation. Because of the present system people were forced to vote tactically. It was claimed that this was in effect a second Brexit referendum. However, it cannot be treated as such because the Labour Brexiters put Brexit first and voted Tory. The Tory remainers, on the other hand, put their party first and voted Tory. Also, they wised up to the fact that the Brexit party was going to split the votes so Farage stood down where there was a Tory candidate, which was largely credited for the Tory majority. If Labour had done a similar pact with the Greens and Lib Dems the results may well have been very different.
First past the post is the worst way a country could run an election. If you need more parties to get a government the more of a say your people will get
A problem with proportional representation is that an area of constituents doesn't get an mp that specifically represents them. Sure the overall result may not look representative of the national vote as a whole, but the current way allows for the mp's to directly represent a specific area's interests. I do agree that first-past-the-post is a problem, especially in a multi-party democracy. Ranked choice would probably be better in that regard to avoid plurality rule.
The last voting reform referendum was really badly explained and promoted! I don't think voting reform will happen until 2 parties with 150+ seats work together to get it passed through parliament.
In germany we have a system where every region elects their representative just like in britain, but there are about double the seats. The remaining seats get filled such that you get total proportional representation. This may even lead to needing some extra seats sometimes, which is done if needed. I think this system is better because every region still has its representative, while at the same time making sure that every vote counts. For that reason in germany we always have coalitions governing (at least in modern times). So politicians are forced to compromise, extreme positions usually don't get a majority.
This is why I vote AFD but dont live in Germany full time. It makes me laugh. To be fair, it is because I cant vote for anyone else because they are mainly corrupt corporate puppets but it is rewardind to vote in germany. The UK should have proportional representation. For example, the UK scottish national party have 55 seats but a tiny proportion of votes.
That doesn’t mean it’s biased, he has talked about the disparity in votes before and is just reporting on it this election, looking at his data snp are clearly the most overrated party, winning 80% of the seat with 40% of the vote!!
I would go as far and say that the current electoral system is "undemocratic". Isnt the the definition of democracy that the people decide who is going to govern? That does not work if only a few votes count. In a fair system EVERY vote matters.
This you get when those who are voted into office also make rules how to vote. UK politician like like to use phrases like mother of parliaments and mother of democracy yet UK system is most undemocratic from all democracies, votes are literally thrown into dumpster and there are many inconveniences to outright obstacles to even cast vote.
I think the UK should adopt a MMP system for parliament, STV for electing the prime minister and Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales should have their own parliament
So you say your political system is actually not a democracy because it does not reflect the will of the people? Because how can it be that parties need a different number of votes to be represented in parliament? ... and the whole time Nigel fought for Brexit because the EU is undemocratic. yeah, well... (whoever has the damage need not worry about the mockery (old german figure of speech))
as much as I completely disagreed with UKIP (and still do) I will always suggest that was a travesty of 'democracy' that left 4 million people almost voiceless in politics.
Janno_O right because if the US was a pure democracy, The coasts would rule the country. Couldn’t think of anything worse than the Midwest being ruled by California and New York voters... especially given the current state of uber-liberal, corrupt cities like NY, LA and SF. The vote in the U.K. will reflect in the US because our political ties and trends are so close. Trump will win by a greater amount than he did previously because the democrats have pushed too far left. It’s inevitable.
@@zteaxon7787 the way SlovesL responded explains it just fine why he just copied it from Americans. The way he links a US democrat landslide because of the 2 coastlines with the UK is fascinating since it doesn't even results in a Labour majority (like you see in the video)
@@jannoottenburghs5121 I know but the factvthey try and delegitimize a 365 vs 203 election result as if it wasn't clear or uncontested enough is mindboggling. They always were absurd but you can only state the obvious so many times I guess we'll always have to call out the liar even when he has a megaphone on repeat and we'd rather do other things. We should remove them at some point isn't it? Even though they always try to illegitimately remove us and it makes you hesitant to allow such a thing. There's a thing called justice and these people don't define it and we have to abide by it.
Under a proportional representation system, I assume Nigel Farage wouldn't have stood down all Brexit Party candidates in the 317 Conservative-held seats. And since those seats were the areas they likely would have performed better in, the Brexit Party would have won a lot more seats while the Conservatives lost more. They were polling at about 10% before Farage announced he would not contest any Conservative seats, and afterwards their support dropped by about half. I reckon they would have performed about as well as the Liberal Democrats did.
I think the problem is with any voting system is that regardless of how you reach a result the representation is only going to be minimally effective on how we govern things because most decisions come down to a yes or no answer. Should we leave the EU: Y/N? for example. This presents a problem and that problem is that regardless of how educated you are or how nuanced your opinions are at the end of the day you're forced to make an absolute in either case. This drives polarisation because you maybe think like a particular one answer to an issue, but at the same time understand where the opposition is coming from, well under this binary system that middle ground just isn't important. The problem isn't representation as much as it's a fundamental problem with how we tackle issues and rarely (at least in politics) look for a middle way to solve issues. You can hold two or more positions in one topic/issue, but our system can't and won't account for that. Just as a vague example you might be against Abortion in principle, but are also for Women's Right to have one within sufficient reason. In our current system you'd be forced to take one side or another. This in my opinion is what needs to change. Proportional Representation will just add more cooks to the broth and that maybe a good thing in some circumstances or bad in others. Representation is all well and good, but it's not perfect either. Who knows. Maybe we should try it for one or two election cycles here in the UK and see how it pans out.
When should the release a video examining the actual voter preferences vs the actual election results? Before the election? This is just an analysis of voting systems. If it makes you feel better just pretend they are animals being voted on for the jungle council....
Shaman 966 people have been arguing for electoral reform for decades. I love how those who benefit the most from this dreadful system say it's perfect.
most people forget, you don't elect the government, you elect the person you want to represent you local area in parliament. The system as it is, is the most fairest, and the only ones who deny this are the ones who are upset because they are not in power!
That's an even worse argument for first past the post. A single constituency gets one MP, so all the people who didn't vote for that MP would feel dissatisfied. In a swing constituency with many viable parties that can be a huge proportion of the population, like 70% huge. At least on the government level it's closer to most people liking the party in power. It doesn't matter who is in power, the system is broken and needs changing. I still rag on the electoral college in america even though the party I liked more won the last election.
@@jackwolowacz9382 no its not! In the UK we live in a democracy, the one with the most votes wins, they become that area's MP. The Party who gains the most MP's, is invited by the monarch to form a government. Its the best system. Proportionate representation makes a mockery of democracy, you end up with never one party gaining a majority, and you end up with noting ever getting done. The college system is perverse, in that the population never get to actually directly vote for their representative. The UK had a referendum on PR, the majority voted to keep first past the post.
@@jackwolowacz9382 If we want to talk about what is truly fair in UK politics, how is it possibly fair that the likes of the SNP be able to meddle, interfere, impede, and vote on things that only effect England, that in Scotland, N. Ireland, and Wales are devolved matters, and with no input from Westminster.
@@James_Rivett If a party can't get a majority in proportional representation, then they're failing to be a good enough party. In your argument as to why our democracy is good, you simply described it and then said "it's the best system". If a party isn't strong enough to get an outright majority on it's own, then it has to compromise and either change its policies to appeal to more voters, or form a coalition with another party. In either case, the policies of more voters are considered, meanwhile in the currently very disproportionate system we have now, the conservatives, who in many constituencies do not even have a majority, have absolute power within their constituency until the next election. That's what happens when you have FPTP as your voting system. It's broken. And on the country-wide level, the system still produces disproportionate MPs according to the national vote. If you truly want the least "perverse" democracy, you'd advocate for a direct democracy. There was a referendum on the alternative vote, not PR and they are in fact different, but both conservatives and labour flooded the people with misinformation about the ranked voting system, and resulted in the voting system that benefits the larger parties remaining the one we use.
Don't I remember that Labour saying they wanted to introduce PR during their past government? We have it in Scotland and it was introduced by a party who knew they would be worse off, yet did it because its fair.
5:06 Just throwing an idea out there as I can't quite parse it in my head: Would it work better (and maintain the links between MPs and constituents) if we added a certain number of non-constituency MPs to parliament to make up the missing percentage? Has that method been tried before?
Germany and New Zealand have this voting system. Its called mixed member proportional system. As a german i can say it does represent people more accurately, but our parliament has 709 mp because of this system and we are looking for some sort of reform to make it smaller right now.
You’ve summed up the reason against proportional representation pretty well. It would encourage more extreme (hard left or hard right) from entering into parliament plus we would see constant hung parliaments. A good size chunk of Tory and Labour votes would’ve gone to the Brexit party and a bit of Labour and Lib Dem to Greens
Spot on, Tory and labour votes would shrink to less than 30% of the vote with the greens and parties like Brexit would rise to around 15%. Nothing would ever get done, much like the stalemate over Brexit we saw under May’s minority government
Proportional representation brings with it a different set of problems. It concentrates political power in the more populated area, which could lead to issues in more lightly populated areas ignored. This would be exacerbated by the removal of the link between the constiuency and the representative, as you mentioned. I think ranked choice voting, in which the voter ranks their choices from most preferable to least preferable and the candidates with the lowest vote total has their vote redistributed to the others until a candidate gets a majority of the vote, would likely be the most fair change to first past the post.
Most people don't care for their local representative. They vote because of party affiliation, not because they like them soo much. The heck, plenty of MPs don't even really live in the constituency they represent. So who cares if that part is scratched? But even if you do want to keep it: just reform the house of lords into something like the US senate then. PS: its inherently undemocratic to give rural areas more voting power then cities. Just like it would be if men had more voting power then women, because they are fewer, or blacks vs. whites etc.
It's to little to late I feel. The Tories have in there manifesto that they will redraw constituencie borders and will like lead to very gerrymandered seats. Unless something fundamentally changes the Tories will just keep winning Majorities.
I never remember this arguement being pushed when UKIP had millions of votes but zero seats... the "game" is as it is. It is flawed but constituencies need local representation rather than taking the UK as one whole community as it clearly is not.
I actually do remember UKIP and other parties pushing for some kind of electoral reform at some point. Also, there are proportional voting systems that actually take more local results into account, though these are not (and no election system is) perfect. The elections for MEPs show what I'm pretty sure, but not absolutely certain, it a proportional voting system that maintains some form of local representation. While I think local representation is important, most people don't even know who their MP is, so I don't think it's important enough to stop reform to the system. Perhaps making the house of lords into a proportionally elected assembly (to replace the EU elections we no longer need to do, meaning we still have three main elections- general, council and perfectly proportional for the 'other place') is the way to go, as then you maintain local representation from MPs in the commons.
But the "game" can be fairer. There are better options that also allow for proportional local representation, and help mitigate the effects of gerrymandering. Surely if you believe in democracy, then you believe the representation should be fair and accurate across the board? Because right now it is not.
which form? as in: should all parties/candidates be ranked or should a top 3 be given, will a vote still be counted if someone only votes for 1 party anyway or is the vote then discarded, do all votes count with a different weight (as in: number of first places counts more then number of second places, but it is possible to get placed second by everyone in the country and then still win), or do you prefer the system where peoples votes go to their second choice if their first choice does not get a seat?
@@iwndegraaf1055 you're describing several other systems. Ranked/single transferable means you rank the candidates in order If no one gets 50%, they eliminate the weakest candidate and all their votes move to people's second choice until someone does have a majority
@@Joesolo13 thanks for explaining. doesn't that carry the risk of having to do multiple recounts, making the wait for results take mulitple days after the election?
The major problem going on as well is that you have all the power be centralized in large urban centers, it's the same in the states, the voting power would go to california new york, texas and florida, with most other states votes no longer mattering. While the first past the post system is flawed, so is direct representation, either way you get peoples voices being ignored.
I have to disagree with that. For one the 100 biggest cities of the USA only make up less than 20% of the population. Along with that the states you mentioned do matter, but way less than they should. Most are fixed Red/Bleu states and thus candidates don't need to spend any time and money there since people would already vote for them anyways.
Which is why the blue wall in the last general elections started flipping, and Reagen, a republican had republican california. IT was stated that clintons major mistake was not campaigning in seats she assumed she would win. Same with how traditional labour seats flipped conservative, really were you not paying attention to the UK elections? And for america at least, the reason voting by representation doesn't work is due to the fact that that each state needs needs protections, imagine living in a small town, but all your farming and water laws or ways of life get dictated by some person in a large city a fair distence away.
I should start by telling you I'm from the United States and, as you're probably aware, we do not have a Parliamentary system. So you can certainly take that into account when evaluating my opinion. That said, here is my opinion (for what it's worth). While on the surface it may seem fair to have a "proportional electoral system" as described in this video, it's important to note that one of the effects of such a system is the "nationalizing" of election results, i.e. people outside of your local area of representation get some say in who gets elected to represent you. The left in the United States uses this argument against the system we use to elect our President, the "electoral college." The downside of nationalizing elections in this way is that populated urban centers (which necessarily have a different sub-culture than rural areas) end up effectively usurping rural representation and forcing their views on people they do not understand and who will ultimately view this as "foreign" intervention in their local affairs. The reason this is an important consideration is that this is a situation that tends to cause people to "split from the group," e.g. Brexit, Scottish independence, or State secession in the U.S. People (down to a very local level) need to feel they have their own voice in order to feel "fairly" represented and to help prevent a larger-scale (national) majority from running roughshod over the minority.
If your vote got you representation then you're a happy bunny. Outside of that each of us still needs representation proportional to how we voted. Fast past the post is a winner takes it all scenario. The first thing every new government is redraw the electoral boundaries in their favour. The argument that FPTP produces strong government. The last few years have disproved that.
Of course with a DIFFERENT SYSTEM the results would be DIFFERENT. but if we had a DIFFERENT SYSTEM 1: People would have VOTED DIFFERENTLY 2: The campaign would have been FOUGHT DIFFERENTLY
@@svenwillett1750 not at all, but trying to say "the majority of the country didn't vote for them, we need proportional rep" is just silly since you're equating two different systems and the results would have been completely different
@@Flame1500 however the election would almost certainly have seen greater representation of smaller parties in a more proportional system, as the current system encourages tactical voting
Anthony Bracuti i agree, i honestly dont mind FPTP cause otherwise we would just have hung parliament after hung parliament. and let’s not forget that the uk voted on having electoral reform and a change in the voting system in 2011 and of the 40% that decided to vote, the overwhleming majority voted to stay with FPTP
I do not think PR better represents people as you do not vote for the person you want to represent you , just a list of names: also parliaments then require significant compromises, that give no one what they want, a complete lack of direction and lack leadership and process driven incompetence- see EU vaccine!! - also PR is subject to much more cronyism and a lack of voter accountability ( which politicians love) - first past the post you are voting for the actual person as opposed to PR which is a list of unknown names that may not even be from your area. This is demonstrated by MEP Nigel Farage- he could not get voted in in first past the post in the UK but easily elected PR as his name was on top of the list ( and his closest friends 2nd and 3rd on the list!!- and cronyism at is best! and what the EU is full of). I can not this of a worse system than PR it terms of true democracy. Only the losers want PR - maybe they should just change their policies and people to become more representative of what people want - then they may win !! Further more Jo Swinson got voted out of parliament by her constituents in 2019 because she did not represent their view ; in PR she would still be touting her same rhetoric without he backing of her constituency- again demonstrating PR is completely undemocratic. First past the post is brutal but directly answerable to the people- only career or unpopular politicians fear it
Looking through the comments it seems that a number of people think this video is in some way bias towards a specific ideology.
If the system were to change to PR then smaller parties from both sides of the aisle would benefit - the Brexit Party, the Lib Dems and the Greens would all pick up a significant number of additional seats.
In fact as we mentioned towards then end of the video parties across the political divide are calling for changes. In fact the Brexit Party's manfiesto contains some of the most radical constitutional changes.
Essentially my point is that highlighting the way the electoral system works isn't bias towards either side. Parties from both sides would benefit. Parties from both sides advocated for it.
You're more than welcome to disagree with PR, but to say that it's only being suggested because Labour lost is untrue. The Brexit Party have more to gain from PR than Labour do and that's why their manifesto is full of constitutional changes.
I'm enjoying the new high sodium version of TLDR... The only downside to this more entertaining content, is that it's less educational.
@Influence08 Yes? It's stupid regardless who wins
The problem with your failure of an attack on your electoral system is that if the electoral system would be different, the campaigns would be different, resulting in different votes, therefore associating the current numbers of votes with a different electoral system is ill advised at best, or flat out dishonest at worst. I'm not sure whether you're incompetent, or malicious, but judging by that you claiming you're being swamped with accusations of pro-uklabour party bias, while me not seeing that (instead, I find a lot of people complaining a missing link to a survey, which I don't exactly understand, since it's literally the second line at the time of writing of this comment saying "Survey:*link*") I'm slowly veering towards dishonesty.
oh, tldr news, when will you understand that "biased" is conservative talk for "not biased towards meeee"
Sadly, we had a vote on P.R. a few years ago, and it was turned down by the voters. I agree we do need to shift to a P.R. system.
TLDR: Uses a skull and crossbones to represent "more extreme" parties
Me: "I for one welcome our new Pirate Party overlords"
Hey now, in my country the Pirate party is one of the biggest parties...
Ho ho ho. Too. Funny.
There's literally a Pirate party in Germany
I want to join the Pirate Raiding Party. Aaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrggggghhhh!
Oh wait. That's not what you meant. Uh. Never mind. Heh heh heh heh.
@@respublica4373 where do you live? Somalia? XD (jk, it's Sweden, or some other Nordic nation right?)
It must be added that people have voted with first past the post in mind, meaning that under a different voting system votes for smaller parties would increase, this means that the current system is less rapresentative than data might suggest
EDIT:
my intention is not to say one system is better or one is worse, I'm not even british so I have no way of knowing what would work for the UK, I just wanted to say that the data in the video doesn't reflect the fact that changing the voting system also changes how people approach voting
I don't think, that so many people would vote for different party, if there was a different system.
@@kOubrecht see it like this.
Why would you vote for a party thaf YOU KNOW wont ever win a seat were you are.
Even if your there biggest supporter.
So you either dont vote at all, because whats the point.
Or you vote for the party that your the least against... to maybe keep the one you hate out.
@@kOubrecht For sure they would. It's the reason Lib Dem and Brexit Party have such a strong number of MEPs. People know that every single vote counts. Even if your whole constituency is 60-70% one party, your vote can still get another party representing you.
Also worth noting though, there'd be a significant amount of people that didn't vote for any party cos they're in an area that is 80% one party, for example if you're area is voting 80% Labour every year you might not bother going to the polls to vote Labour cos you know(/think) that they're going to win in your area anyway so why bother voting for them so it wouldn't just be minor parties gaining votes from a reworked system
Lib Dems would have got at least one extra vote from me under PR
The voting behavior would have changed as well with a proportional system. I know plenty of people that voted a certain way because their vote wouldn't matter otherwise. (mainly labour or conservative)
Also, the behavior of MPs wouldn't be the same if they get the seat through proportional system. Every MPs will have to follow a party line no matter how terrible the decisions or the orders are because the party is the one choosing who get to be an MP.
So, basically people can only vote for party and party choose who get to be an MP. This ultimately gave party leader a power of dictatorship within a party and MP is no longer has to take care of people in their constituency because MP seat won't be link to them.
True, but proportional representation would be awful for local politics. We use FPTP because it is the best compromise between streamlined National and representative local policy. Our MPs represent the majority vote of the people in their constituency and it prevents population centres such as cities from disproportionately affecting results on the national scale.
It’s not a perfect system but there are definitely drawbacks to PR that people often overlook.
@@Bushflare You could reform the other part of your parliament into a chamber that represents the regions, like in the US the senate presents the states. This way, you'd still have a corrective for that.
Also: I'd like to see some data on how important that "local representative" thingy really is. Isn't the reality that most people don't vote the person, but because they are in the party the people want to support?
Local representatives might have been important in the 1800s, but now you can work in London and live 100 miles away.
@@Bushflare You could vote regional but then give than compensate the seats got by the bigger parties with just more seats for smaller parties, so at the end its representative regional and also proportional to the vote of the people
In NZ the MMP system has never resulted in one party winning an absolute majority, it encourages parties to work together, find a middle ground as well as be more proportional
Yer but Winston Peter's and NZ first with only 7.2% of the vote became King maker. So a party with 7.2% of the vote chose the PM. I'm not in favor of first past the post but I dont like NZs system either.
I like Australias system, everyone gets two single transferable votes one for the House of Representatives (House of commons) with signal member constituencies and the 2nd vote is for the Senate (House of Lords) elected by Proportional representation from party lists.
Mathew Harty i think that majorities are more healthy for a culture. People get angry when nothing they voted for gets done ever because everything has to be a compromise.
Too bad it didn't stop the National party (ill-advisedly) bleating like sheep that "the election was stolen" from them, simply because they got the largest proportions of votes xD
That's not how it works under MMP National!!
Regardless of one thinks of that, as you say MMP encourages working together and better proportionally represent the electorate
It doesn’t always means that it’ll better though. Thailand has a similar voting system, but the parliament is still very divided, just about a week ago the opposition coalition staged a walkout and halted the government.
@@jjosephs6521 I also do like the Australian system. Thank you for pointing out that disadvantage with MMP, i forgot to point out that when I wrote the comment. (I haven't really thought this through properly) It's also important to have minority groups represented in government and MMP can help that particularly if the government doesn't have anyway else to do that
In Ireland we use single transferable vote and we haven't had a majority government in about 50 years , which is more amazing when you realize that we've only had a parliament for 100 years
And despite CJ Haughey, I would contend that the Irish political system actually works better than the British one. It's more focused on consensus and doesn't have massive shifts in policies after an election with a change of government.
@@nastysimon also referenda on major issues helps
This is a good thing in ireland, the Dáil is actually representing the people there's still big enough parties that will usually be in government but you also have small parties and even independents who get in to represent the people
UK had a referendum for single transferable vote in 2011 and rejected it - only the losing politicians want PR not the people.
@@davidthomas5261 parties that benefit from PR want it , those that don't oppose it ,the conservatives in the UK have been in government for a decade but have never won the popular vote , if there was PR they would at the very least have had to be in a coalition for this whole time and they value staying in power above everything else so they obviously don't want it
You're forgetting that in a PR system smaller parties would've got more votes because there wouldn't be need for tactical voting anymore.
Isn’t that the goal anyway?
Go check out the history of the Israeli Knesset... they've NEVER HAD A MAJORITY w/out a coalition... Here in the US, we have to make our coalitions before the voting, which means moar principle and less strategy.
I'm a Republican, which is the third party ever since 1864... we buried the fuckin' Whigs.
Exactly
It's simple . Count the votes fairly . All the BS in the world is just for cheating .
When you change the system, the voters also change the way they vote.
... which would even kick the smaller parties to better results.
If you want to know more about this topic and why FPTP is the worst electoral system imaginable, you should have a look at CGP Grey's series on different voting systems. (They are explained by using a made-up "animal kingdom" to avoid any real world analogies.)
@Adam Filinovich But it fits so well to UK's status of democracy.
Let all the other nations improve from century to century, UK will stay static.
Yup, get rid of the spoiler effect so they actually vote how they feel rather than being shoehorned into one of two ill fitting boxes.
North Korea is an excellent example!
Australia uses Single Transferrable Vote, and I'm pretty happy with it. It means you can vote for who you genuinely want in power, without having to second-guess the result or vote tactically.
Edit: Soz we use preferential instant-runoff voting to elect the lower house, my bad.
Australia's preferential voting system still at the end of the day benefits the two big parties. For example in the last Federal Election the Greens got 11% of the National vote in the House of Representatives but only got 0.66% of the seats. The Senate system is much better though
@@Petreon360 just adding to that, the National party got just over 8% of the vote, netting them 23 seats
so they polled less and received 23x as many seats as the greens?
the issue with the current system isnt in preferential voting - its in the division of electorates (and then obviously the influence of major donors and media)
It is still not as good as PR though. STV means two-party system. Every general election ends up with a single party majority in Australia.
Our system in Australia works well because the upper house is done different to the lower house. So we have a bit or an each way bet. Meaning that we're likely to get a Majority in the Lower house, but it's rare in the upper. The UK with their house of lords don't get this chance. In addition our Govenor General has the guts to sack the government as the ultimate safety valve.
Also writing from Australia here. I feel that some form of proportional representation is best _however_ the preferential method we use here for our _single-member_ electorates is still _way_ better than what they do in the UK. The candidates that win are those preferred by the majority in any given electorate. If proportional representation is too daring for the UK then they could at least consider preferential.
Germany has a pretty cool system where you cast two votes; one for a party and one for a candidate. In Sweden we vote for a party with a list of candidates, but have the ability to select one candidate lower on the list to vote that candidate up. So in both systems there are a proportional party representation but the voters also have the ability to select their favourite candidate.
Most (if not all?) European countries have proportional representation. The UK is the odd one (as per usual).
The two vote system has two issues: Parties making party politics for the second vote, instead of making it clear that this is a vote for local representative in Berlin (see FDP campaigns for reference what I mean). The "Überhangmandate" are are mess in its own right and there where proven cases, where less party votes would be lead to more party seats because of the math of the Überhangmandate. And also see FDP for an example on how the second vote can screw over proportional representation in favor of party politics (If the FDP would have campaigned for their candidate, that would be fine. But they as a party had the party slogan "First Vote CDU, Second Vote FDP" - and that is antidemocratic nonsene).
How on earth has Angela Merkel been the chancellor for so long then? It's felt like over a decade
Yeah but that's gonna work properly, and we can't have that in Britain.
Btw. ich bin Deutscher, daher auch die Erfahrung mit dem Wahlsystem.
The only other EU country that doesn't have a system that is somewhat proportional is France.
@@Qualltoxy
Yup, unfortunately. But at least the election is on two turns.
The reason why they will never do this is because it doesn’t benefit them to do so
We had a referendum to change it in 2011. 13 million people said no.
Russian Bot, UK Division ahhh yes when the country was civilised
@@saudiprince6532 Which system are you advocating for?
@@RuleBritannia1987 When the options are "this" or "basically this but you get to rank candidates from your constituency" it's no wonder nobody cared.
Saudi Prince It doesn’t work for the country, either.
I'd remind you that it wouldn't be "Hung Parliaments" anymore, it'll be the norm and coalitions would be perfectly normal, like it is in most European countries.
Like in Scotland!
In Spain no one knows who their MP is and all the parties, including the small ones, show a loathsome disdain for their voters. They have had years of bitter discussions in trying to arrive at a workable government and people are even more pissed off about their politicians than they are in the UK. The far right Vox party has substantial representation in the Cortes.
@@jasonpreater6220 It's worth pointing out that, while Spain's system is more proportional than the UK, it's not a PR system.
@@jasonpreater6220 That’s hardly (solely) due to the electoral system.
Governments can be just as dysfunctional under FPTP systems (look at the UK and US...) and other PR-governed countries don’t necessarily have Spain’s current problems
Also, while the notion of having a specific MP based in where you live is one of the more solid arguments for FPTP, the problem with safe seats means that “your MP” may not give a toss about your concerns if you happen not to be part of the solid voter bloc in your constituency, which is also a big criticism of FPTP.
This “knowing your MP” concept is simply less relevant in PR systems, as the main concern of voters tend to be with a party, rather than a single, local MP. However, the local aspect is not entirely lost, as most PR systems tend to combine geographically defined seats with “bonus seats”, with the latter reflecting all those votes that “wouldn’t count” in a FPTP system.
As for Vox being present in the Cortes, are you saying that a system where the views of voters aren’t being represented is totally fine - as long as it’s happening to political parties you don’t like? And no, I don’t like Vox either.
Yes because it works so well in Germany.
Just gonna put this out there: Norway and Finland regularly have hung parliaments and coalition governments and they are regularly rated the HAPPIEST places on the planet!
Thats because its too cold to argue....
Not really applicable to the UK tbh
Hung parliaments are the greatest strength of a "democracy"
There's no proof to say those two pieces of information are related
we fought and won WW2 under a hung parliament! Hung parliaments are not the problem. The problem is the maturity of the MP's
A really important effect of this that you don’t address is that people would vote differently in a proportional system. The Greens, for example, would get more seats based on their current share of the vote and they would probably *also* see an increase in that share of the vote, as people would no longer feel that it was a ‘wasted’ vote.
The Colonel There’s no legitimacy in an electoral system that is skewed against whichever parties happen to trigger us. There’s also a very real possibility that far right parties will be emboldened by PR, but that’s the price of truly representative democracy. You can’t deal with radicalism by brushing it under the carpet. Right now we have a landslide administration which is nonetheless a minority party. Whether you or I like the Conservatives under Johnson is immaterial, the fact is, nearly 60% of the electorate don’t.
@The Colonel Under FPTP every government is effectively a fringe government. You say that there are compromises in every democratic system, but if you have a zero-sum game "winner takes all" system, as the UK (and almost nobody else) does, there IS no need for compromise. If anything, post-war politics in the developed world show that PR does more to push governments to the centre than FPTP does.
In GE2019, 57% of the UK electorate has been reduced to the role of impotent and bemused spectatorship because a political party that simply has no meaning to them have won an artificial landslide due to the peculiarities of our electoral system. This isn't necessarily a criticism of either Johnson or the English Conservative party per se; this situation would be just as alarming if the Labour Party had again assumed power under similar circumstances, as they did in each of their election victories in the 2000's. British politics operates under the illusion of consensus.
The UK has gone back and forward between governments that are either futher to the left or (mostly) the right than any of our world peers, and this has been to the detriment of the UK. In the rest of the democratic world beyond the US and UK, PR has created an effective centre-ground that is largely social democratic, and the UK and US are now floundering because of their over-factionalised approach to political parties, and a fixation with a failed monetarist ideology that presumes that markets alone create morality, better infastructure and social cohesion. In the Anglo-Saxon world political affiliations have become part of people's identity; in the rest of the world, politicians occupy a merely technocratic role that governs from the centre, utilising - but light-touch regulating - open markets, which we know to be empirically necessary.
The political writer Alexis de Tocqueville once noted that effective politics and effective politicians should largely be dull; in the Anglo-Saxon world, we've become too addicted to the politics of spectacle as a source of meaning and identity.
@The Colonel 1. The rise of populism in Europe has been overstated by the UK press; 2. The notion of a left-wing dominance in European Politics is illusory; the EU is neoliberal and light-touch free markets won the ideological war three decades ago; even the Scandinavian countries have liberalised their markets and reduced their tax burden. 3. As disagreeable as political correctness is, there is simply no such thing as cultural marxism. Postmodernism and dialectical materialism are antithetical to each other. it is a tautological buzzword that has no meaning whatsoever.
Hung parliament = consensus-based democracy why does the UK attach such a negative connotation to decisions not being made by just one party?
Flamin' Cat because the country needs to come together after being divided by brexit it now needs a stable government that is able up function properly
Mostly because of things like what has been happening during Brexit where politicians don't discuss or work together at all and instead kick and drag their stubborn heels in temper tantrums that last 3 years
@@richardhills6952 Hung parliament is not a term invented for Brexit. along with that how would you imagine people coming together for a decision like this? " I voted for party X but since party z won thanks to the system I will still be in a position, thanks to their decision making that will be terrible for me". Yeah, sure
People get angry when they never get anything they ever vote for. Pr actually removes choice from voters and puts it all in the hands of a few professional politicians that decide who works together. In pr you get what you want less of the time because you don’t decide policy even if you vote for the king makers.
As well as what people have said in this thread, in the UK party voters often consider it a betrayal should their party enter into a coalition with another party.
Don't really see how you can say the "discussion about electoral reform has really begun" - when there was a referendum on changing the voting system in 2011.
Sure electoral reform is a positive thing - but it is not a new thing.
A vote that failed because most people didn’t care about it at the time. These days I’m hearing far more ordinary people talking about electoral reform, it’s not just political wonks
@@WhichDoctor1 Don't forget that it wasn't proportional representation that was being offered, we were fobbed off with the "alternative vote" as it was called, no one wanted it so not surprising no one cared about it.
In that vote the libdems layed down and let the conservatives walk all over them telling lies.
The information from the government was that AV was okay but the best way to remove a government you didn't like was with the current system.
Just because there was a vote doesn't mean there was a discussion. Look at the EU referendum.
The local constituency link is a myth. I suspect that most MP's are parachuted into their constituency and only live there once elected. My MP having been parachuted in spends most of his time in london and his "local office number" is now a london one, where he hangs out with his bit of stuff on the side.
Well my MP is really awesome, almost always responds to letters, has weekly surgeries where anyone can talk to her, and actually represents us in parliament.
Maybe you should vote in a new MP.
We had a Tory MP once. We're in Lancashire, he lived in Scotland, and I can't remember the guy's name.
One answer to to this is to have meaningful residency requirements such as a minimum of 3-5 years having your primary residence in the district before you can run for office. Carrier politicians would hate it but it would be better for the people.
Being local doesn't necessarily solve the problem. The SNP MP who just got elected in my constituency was previously our MP from 2015-2017, and she was an awful representative of the local area despite living just down the road. Sometimes politicians are just incompetent lmao
Sam Burton-King it’s not her fault your neighbours are voting for her and not somebody else
This is nothing new, as long as I can remember we've discussed changing our voting system after every election. Even had a referendum on it in 2010.
The referendum failed because they wanted to change it to another shitty system. It was deliberate, they didn't want to change the system and they knew perfectly well people would vote against the one they suggested.
@@starlinguk Im still upset about it lol
@@starlinguk the system they were changing it too would've been better. It's just the government put out a shit ton of what basically amounted to propaganda because they didn't want the system to change.
@@starlinguk I read up on the 2011 vote to AV (is still better than FPTP but not by much), and for that vote Labour abstained from either side because they found that the Tories had snuck in a clause which allowed them to change constituency boundaries, which essentially meant that if AV was adopted they could gerrymander the votes), and the entire vote was poisoned by the Tories lmfao
@@CM-db5cg FPTP serves the big two parties the best, so of course they were against it. The only reason we have what we call a "two party system" is an artifact of the travesty that is FPTP. Any system that wastes as many votes as is mentioned in this video is not worthy of being called a democratic system
The problem with a lot of PR systems is that they give to much power to who ever gets to draw up the lists for who will be the parties MPs if they get enough votes. Giving MPs dual loyalties.
That's why Single Transferable Vote is the best.
It keeps local MPs, whilst making it more proportional and more competitive, so MPs have to work to keep their seats.
Or, you know, open lists.
@@Quintinohthree Even if the list are open they still have a lot of influence. Say Boris got to decide on the Conservative party list. Then if any Conservative MPs said they were going to voted against him on some bill he could threaten to lower them on the list.
Any voting system needs to make sure that the only opinion MPs care about is that of their voters.
Here in canada, first past the post is an absolute mess and i hate it. We were promised electoral reform and never got it
because the current leader is not prepared to lose his grip on power...
Let’s acknowledge for a moment the difficulties in changing voting systems in democracies. Let’s also acknowledge the importance of continuing to advocate ALL PARTIES on the issue. If you want to know why Canada didn’t get much movement on electoral reform.....ask the CPC- they have the most to lose from proportional systems (because they have the most to gain from status quo) and therefore refused to budge. But let’s just blame PM Trudeau, that’s better.
john Stewart lol. It’s the CPC who get the majority of the benefit in the current system and therefore they have the most to lose. But nice try blaming PM Trudeau, but the facts don’t support you. Especially when you look at how the CPC all but blocked movement on the issue.
@@bartwilson2513 Since the CPC won the popular vote in 2019 they stand to gain the most from a purely PR system then? Although I suppose the Liberals would enter into a formal coalition with the NDP.
Here’s the thing: You don’t vote for the Conservatives or Labour,. You vote for Mary Smith, who happens to be a Conservative, or Bill Jones, who happens to be Labour. It’s entirely possible that Mary Smith wins your constituency of Bumblefuck East because she’s such a great person, but that dastardly Bob Green, the Conservative candidate in Bumblefuck West, is someone you wouldn’t piss on if he were on fire.
So combining vote totals by party is very misleading.
That was true four hundred years ago, but due to televisions and other forms of mass media and the increasing organisation and power of parties, the parties and their leaders are far more prominent in the public consciousness, so a constituency based system is less reflective of popular will and practical reality.
Im dutch so I seriously don't know, but do people really vote that way? Do they put more emphasis on their MP or on the party?
Can,t agree with you at all and neither would just about every other representative democracy on the planet .
The Colonel Exactly. All those northerners who went blue last week talked about how “metropolitan” Labour had become. I happen to think that was a pretty invalid reason to change their votes, but there you have it.
Well a PR system would accelerate Labour’s movement in that direction quite rapidly. Ditto the Tories, who are, as the northerners will soon learn, more “metropolitan” still.
If the country’s not homogeneous, and people are determined to make an issue of geographic differences, constituencies are essential to keep national parties responsive to that trend. Otherwise only myopic regional parties have a chance.
Speederzzz Well, two MPs were recalled by their constituents this year, triggering by-elections. One of those by-elections returned a different candidate from the same party. The other switched parties by a narrow margin, but switched back in the general election. In both cases party loyalty remains a going concern. So why bother recalling an MP if personality is irrelevant?
proportional representation is awful it has been destroying my country for the last decade with terrible coalition govts and is not democratic at all actually it excludes rural communities and other minorities from having a say
Which nation is that?
So, from that the "votes per seat" metric, the SNP is seriously over represented for its voters.
Yes, but why is that your only take away? Lib dems are seriously underrepresented. So are the brexit party.
@@drummingtildeath its not my only take away, but it is the obvious conclusion that comes out of the metric and it is not even discussed.
The SNP being "over-represented" and the Libs being "under-epresented" are two sides of the same coin.
The argument that PR will make everything better is flawed.
@@RickiMcKay where's the flaw?
The fact that the SNP are over represented at present is not a flaw with PR, it's a flaw with FPTP.
FPTP favours regional parties.
Yes it is because the Scottish constituencies are disproportionate to English ones. It's so to satisfy Scottish desire for higher representation (Scotland 5 milion inh, England 55 milion inh) as otherwise Scottish MP would never be able to pass anything in HoS. Actually if the representation of Scotland was to be reduced Scotland would probably outright leave the Union and perhaps they should in the end.
I think that there is also a huge difference on how a voter thinks when seats are awarded proportionally. If you support a smaller candidate in your area that has no chance of winning, it still makes sense voting for him. Whereas if the winner gets all, you can sit at home or spoil because the only difference you make is that the winner gets unmeasurably lower proportion.
There is no accountability with Proportional Representation. With First Past the Post, I can actively vote to remove an MP from their seat, as I did this last election, helping to turn my seat from red to blue, with PR, I could not do that.
If you want to see the worst part of FPTP, watch the US presidential primaries...and how little of a percentage is needed to get *all* electoral votes in the primary :(
There has already been a referendum on this. PR was rejected when the question was asked during the coalition government that preceded Dave Cameron's.
Nicole K It was on AV as the new system which is definitely not the choice many want in terms of PR. Also the campaign was a bit of a mess when you look into the campaign itself.
@@keeleyreynolds8351 The Lib Dems were rewarded for their coalition with the Tories by being annihilated in 2015, hardly a good advert for coalitions.
Russian Bot, UK Division Of course it isn’t a good advert in that regard, but it was Cameron fulfilling their want for a PR voting system referendum by giving them (possibly) the most unwanted PR system. But we also have to remember the coalition government did serve a full five years in government, which by that time was technically a full term under the Fixed Term Parliaments Act.
AV is not PR, nor did it claim to be. Please don’t lie. PR has never been tested in a UK referendum.
And this is why the Westminster system is the least democratic of all "democratic" systems.
Because they dislike the result.
Kaz Walker No the issue is not that People dislike the result, the issue is that votes don’t count. Walter is objectively right
@@kazwalker764 You'd be complaining if Labour had won. You can't just accept non-democratic practices because your favourite won. That's bordering on fascism.
@@starlinguk Hah, quite a bit of projection in your post... I live in a country that has FPTP (Canada), and my preferred party lost because of it, but won the popular vote.
I still think Canada should keep the FPTP system so that rural voters are fairly represented. I even live in one of the largest cities and was raised in one.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 Leftist idiot.
@@starlinguk
I get what you’re trying to say but:
1: FPTP is non-representative on a national scale, but representative on the local scale. It is not non-democratic.
2: It is nowhere even close to Fascism.
Your original premise is wrong. If Labour had achieved the Conservatives percentage they would have achieved a majority of 160. The electorate doesn't want to reform the system as demonstrated in 2011. Why? The electorate wants a government to lead not the mess that we have had since 2017 which would be the result of a proportional system. Which would also wipe out independent MPs completely.
It probably isn't entirely true that you would get the same mess with a proportional system. The reason it was a mess is because parties didn't want to accept a compromise due to the fact that compromises are harshly punished in a FPTP system. In a proportional system this is often not the case. Because parties don't get as harshly punished, compromises become more prevalent, thus not ending up in the same mess as you have had. This is examplified in the many countries that have these kinds of voting systems and where it isn't a mess.
You and all your facts and history, and correct reasoning... You're forgetting that TLDR is hard left. Hence: "butt muh democracy".
I for one, am enjoying the new high sodium videos. 🤣🤤
Labour doesn't understand the working class anymore.
Check out the Dutch voting system. We have a proportional system.
Many countries have, the only reletively uncommon thing about the system is that it doesn't have an election threshold.
I am an expat in The Hague (South-Holland). The last elections of the Prov. Of South-Holland (The Hague, Rotterdam) were won by the fascist FvD, second was the more moderate right VVD, but they were clearly also campaigning to get the far right-wing voters. And not to talk about little reactionair Christian parties who also got some percent of the votes. It is a madhouse. A political system like in the UK, would even be a bigger disaster here.
@@mrid5850 There isn't a formal election threshold in the Netherlands, true. However, for the national election you still need to get 1/150 of the total amount of votes cast to get a seat in parliament. So there is an unofficial threshold.
@@PGraveDigger1 True, though this is the case with every proportional voting system in an indirect democracy as you always have to divide the total number of votes cast by the amount of seats in parliament. Don't get me wrong, I like the fact that there isn't a electoral threshold, it makes it just that bit more democratic. Though it is a shame that some smaller parties like FvD can come into parliament. But that's democracy as well, appearantly there is a demand for such a party so it is only democratic that those people also get a voice.
@@luxembourger how is it a madhouse? It is simply a representation of what people want. Think of the UK Labour party as an example: there was little to no consensus within the party on brexit but there was little room to split.up into separate parties as would have happened in NL. If there had been proportional voting, pro-brexit or anti-brexit MPs would have been able to feasibly split from their parties and form a government together, based on whichever stance has a majority: MPs are nor locked into parties and parties are not locked in quite as much. Flexibility is the result, not a stalemate per se
Where is the link to the survey?
It is on the comunity tab
@@danielastorga2296 Thanks for pointing it out. Looked for it in the description at the time before it was added.
There is one thing that I think that we need is an independent electoral commission, separate from parliament and able to stand up to governmental pressure.
Also this regulator needs serious enforcement powers and penalties as well.
@@simonburling3762 And how will this make parliament more representative?
@@Quintinohthree By being a neutral referee to enforce the rules certainly will help representation by preventing big party bullying. Also some of the other proposals need to be made law.
@@simonburling3762 A neutral referee can't change the rules that perpetuate an unrepresentative parliament, they can only enforce them.
Ah, then you must have misunderstood. By voting Boris Johnson into power with a large majority, you have given up all independent institutions, and employee and environmental protection. Expect politically appointed judges, making it illegal to contradict the government, making it illegal to leak information, and redistricting the map to maximize conservative wins in future elections. The people around Johnson are smart enough to cement their hold onto power into law, use Brexit to get rid of anything standing in their way, and blame the EU and immigrants for any negative consequences.
First past the post is disgustingly undemocratic
First past the post is a dumb and un-democratic system.
So in that system there would be relatively no chance of any party having a majority, meaning hardly anything would get done because every party would want something different, done wt this moment we would neither stay nor leave the EU and business would stagnate through a lack of forward planning. Or is that wrong?
Parties would need to compromise and build coalitions with other parties to form a majority that then governs.
The result is less black/white and more colorful or grey tones. Less extreme and more moderated.
Less crazy and more stable.
@@joansparky4439 So no one ends up happy and voters feel even more disenfranchised. Well done
@@SamuriLemonX18 No, more people are happy and voters feel and are more enfranchised.
@@Quintinohthree I'm sorry but i have to disagree with that point, it is only my opinion but i feel less people would be happy with what i feel would be total mediocrity and inertia.
@@davidlewis5780 Good luck disagreeing with reality. By and large voters in proportional systems are happier with their electoral systems and feel more represented than in systems which exclusively employ single-member constituencies.
I've been campaigning for a change to the FPTP system for quite a few years now. Those of you in the UK looking for an organisation linked to pressuring the government to change the way we elect our MP's should check out Electoral Reform UK, where we push towards implementing the Single Transferable Vote (we are open to other systems though!)
Why don't you mention Sinn féin and Alliance party as the "Others". The balance of power in NI has changed for the first time ever.
thanks for bringing that up man
Same in Scottland. For a unionist party the Tories sure push their union apart...
Maybe he keeps that for another video. This is huge thing cuz separatist parties have never had majority before.
I'm just heartbroken that SNP didn't get a clear majority.... Us Jacobites have no choice but to invade again.
We'll be led by our Bonny Prince Patrick Stewart and his adopted son Jon "Leibowitz" Stewart.
That haven't really talked about the results at all outside of England. It is a little annoying.
Also most people aren't voting for who they want to lead the country, they're voting for whoever they think is the least worst out of conservatives and labour
If the election used proportionate regional lists (1 list each for England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland containing the current equivalent number of constituencies) the result would be:
283 Conservatives
210 Labour
75 Liberal Democrats
26 SNP
17 Green Party
14 Brexit Party
6 DUP
5 Plaid Cymru
4 Sinn Fein
3 Alliance
3 SDLP
2 UUP
2 UKIP
I love it when people who live under a parliamentary system make fun of the electoral college we have in the US. "ThEy WoN wItHoUt WiNnInG a MaJoRiTY?!?!?!?!? LoL." Who's laughing now?
The electoral college is also ridiculous.
You also have no voter ID which leads to massive cases of voter fraud, and electoral college means that a couple of large cities on the East and West coast don't get to decide the future of the entire country, especially when those areas have most cases of voter fraud,
@@seithroil True. Let me clarify that I all I mean to say is that we are not the only place with a nonsensical system.
@@barrymurphy3379 Agreed. As a center-left voter, it makes my blood boil every time the Democrats rail against voter ID laws.
Barry Murphy ahhhh the voter fraud conspiracy. Someone drank the Kool-Aid.
The UK should switch to STV, with each constituency being a county, and they send as many MP's as they need to.
Keeps the local representation, while providing people with Representatives they can more comfortably interact with.
"hung parliaments" are kinda the point of proportional representation, it actually encourages parties to work together, instead of against one another.
Because the effect generally seen from such a situation is that it becomes extremely hard for a government to get things done. A party who holds the majority could put a policy to vote and effectively be blocked with very few rebel MP's from their own side. This is seen in a lot of the previous Brexit votes and has resulted in the likes of Ken Clark being ousted from the Conservative party.
@@jameslewis2635 The Netherlands hasn't had a party get a majority of the seats in parliament since 1891. We've had proportional representation since 1919. In my opinion, the last 100 years (ignoring WW2) were pretty great for us.
@@jameslewis2635 On the other hand in systems where one party needs to have majority it pretty inevitably leads to extreme polarization of politics, and cooperation is seen as taboo.
On the other hand, recent real world experience casts doubt on that idea. Brexit was all about that situation where parties would have been encouraged to work together, but it didn't really work. They didn't really work together, instead working against each other for years of deadlock.
@@volkris Kind of proves my point. UK uses FPTP system, so parties aren't encouraged to work together on an institutional basis. As such even something of as huge national importance as handling Brexit properly was hijacked by the polarized political system.
I would almost guarantee if UK had an election system where parties had been forced to work together in coalition governments then Brexit would already have been done, or would never have happened at all.
End of day. The party with the most votes, got majority.
And in each area, the winning candidate with most votes won.
Some parties literally do not have enough candidates worth voting for.
So it’s silly to put candidates forward that are not suitable for the job, just to give a more proportional balance.
If we end up voting for the party as a whole then this reduced the accountability for your local candidate.
In essence we would all be voting for a “president”.
I think there’s an argument for both systems.
No system would be perfect.
Proportional vote does not represent the voters or it is democracy. Proportional is for partitocratic form of government or government for party by the party for the parties. In partitocratic there is no representation or mandate because it is no democracy
Election Reform is very important.
In a Democracy the point is for everyone to be heard and listened too.
There is a lot of people in the comments talking about the Australian system. While Australia's preferential voting system is much better than the UK first past the post system, it however still benifts and maintains the two big party duopoly. For example in the last Federal Election the Greens got got 11% of the National vote but only got 0.6% of the seats.
The greens got more seats than they deserved... anyone with even half a brain can see that...
@@johnstewart3846,
LNP: 76,000 per seat.
Labor: 69,000 per seat.
Greens: 1,483,000 - only 1 seat. How exactly does Greens get more seats than they deserve?
sarcasm: - the use of irony to mock or convey contempt.
To think that people rejected the AV referendum by over 60% back in 2011...
What What yeah I supported it (it’s not as fair as STV would be, but it’s a step in the right direction) and I haven’t yet heard one argument against it except for either “It was a LibDem or Green rig to get them more seats” or “but it’s not real PR”. Technically those are both true but they aren’t actually compressions to choose FPTP over AV.
Only 10% bothered to turn out I think.
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but wouldn’t proportional voting essentially drown out the voices of Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland due to population size in comparison with England?
Shh, you're thinking to much. You need to stop thinking and just listen to your feelings.
And if you come to another conclusion, you're wrong and need to just agree with whatever the left wing position is.
correct me if a am wrong: but are constituency sizes not formed to roughly contain about the same number of people/voters?
@@sarowie You still have the situation, where the NSP gets three times fewer votes than the Lib-Dems, but three times more seats.
That would not happen in the new system, but it would mean Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland will be under total control from England.
The LibDems are to blame if their coalition had been with labour and not Cameron then there would have been an electoral reform that could have made them a MAJOR party. In fact, you could link all of Britain's problems to silly Nick Clegg.
The Netherlands hasnt had a 1 partij majority in our parliament since 1891 as far as I can see. Every single government since then has been a government formed from a coalition of parties. I dont mean to nationalistically ignorant but the Netherlands is a pretty damn great place... Theres also plenty of other countries who continually have coalitiok governments and are doing really well... So the entire argument of hung parliaments being a problem is bs.
You're assuming British politicians have the same inclination to work together as the Dutch. Have you been asleep for the last 3 years?
Totally agreed. Im really fond of coalition governments myself. Greetings from a German neighbor.
@@charlieg1029 no, not at all, but we created a climate for working together because we had to. Imagine if you guys had done the same. Sure its not going to be effective immediately because youve built up a culture of hostility in your politics but youve got to break through that. Right now you live in an elected dictatorship where 1 party holds both the executive and the lawmaking power. Thats a massive imbalance of influence. The Netherlands is not perfect in this, theres plenty of things wrong with our balance of power but at least there is some scrutiny and control between the executive and lawmaking powers. You dont have any of that.
I wonder how well they would work together if you ever decided to leave the E.U?
@@ChrisWalter our political parties? In a similar manner as now. There would be debate, some topics would be devisive and there would be a lot of attempts to try and get a coalition of parties to support a 'Nexit' mandate. Though, afterwards the Netherlands would fail as a country, we rely too much on trade with the EU. Either we crash out and destroy our economy or we lose all influence in the EU and become its bitch.
RE: Online voting in the survey - see Tom Scotts videos on electronic voting. One of the worst ideas you could possibly suggest for elections imo.
Electronic/online voting is fine, ASSUMING that you have paper backups that are actively counted as well. As it stands, paper ballots alone are also less accurate and safe then a combination. Lost ballot boxes, fires. Having 2 systems to cross reference makes everything a whole lot better.
@@deefdragon You can't cross-reference systems which are not of themselves reliable. Electronic voting is inherently unreliable, while paper voting can be made almost perfectly reliable. In the end you must rely on paper.
@@deefdragon And congratulations, you've just invented the world's most expensive pencil.
Why bother with the online bit if the ballot is automatically printed? Just use the paper version.
@@Quintinohthree that thing goes invalid when you smeared some ink at others folding it lol (at least in my country)
also the losing party will ALWAYS call for a paper recount. The electronic vote is really a shitty idea, however you look at it.
The best about this: Britains calling the EU (elections) undemocratic :D
What is it with English speaking elections that they are so backwards? I also don’t understand that local issues get mentioned in the PM’s questions. Why aren’t those dealt by by local governments?
Because local government is part of the Central government
@@tobywalker712 I know, but that is a waste of time. It also disrupts the democratic process with that stupid fist past the post.
No way in a normal democracy a majority should be achieved through a minority in votes.
I dont really care if extreme parties get in, they wont really have power anyway
We've had four elections in nine years because of hung parliaments, the Commons has done virtually nothing since 2016 because of hung parliaments, the Coalition government of 2010-15 resulted in Lib Dem annihilation at the ballot box, we had a referendum in 2011 to change FPTP to AV rejected by 13 million voters.
You know if a remain party had won this video wouldn't have happened.
"That doesn't mean Boris Johnson doesn't deserve to be in number ten"
At first I thought you were going to follow that up with "so here are some reasons that *do* mean he doesn't deserve to" but then I noticed there was only two minutes left
It seems unfair that, despite the fact that the majority of people in the country did not vote for the Tories, they now have a large majority and absolute power. Only one person in five voted Tory. There is a strong case for proportional representation. Because of the present system people were forced to vote tactically. It was claimed that this was in effect a second Brexit referendum. However, it cannot be treated as such because the Labour Brexiters put Brexit first and voted Tory. The Tory remainers, on the other hand, put their party first and voted Tory. Also, they wised up to the fact that the Brexit party was going to split the votes so Farage stood down where there was a Tory candidate, which was largely credited for the Tory majority. If Labour had done a similar pact with the Greens and Lib Dems the results may well have been very different.
First past the post is the worst way a country could run an election. If you need more parties to get a government the more of a say your people will get
You didn't put the link to the survey in the description
you can find it on the community tab of the channel page
@@thanksfordoxingpeopleyoutube cheers my guy
Stuff like this is how you can always see what's beneath the surface with a channel like this. If they'd won, this never would've been made.
So true
In the 90s the Blair government had an amazing chance to change the voting rules to pr and they didn’t. You reap what you sow
ringodooby labour won't change the electoral system since PR benefits them so much.
A problem with proportional representation is that an area of constituents doesn't get an mp that specifically represents them. Sure the overall result may not look representative of the national vote as a whole, but the current way allows for the mp's to directly represent a specific area's interests. I do agree that first-past-the-post is a problem, especially in a multi-party democracy. Ranked choice would probably be better in that regard to avoid plurality rule.
The last voting reform referendum was really badly explained and promoted!
I don't think voting reform will happen until 2 parties with 150+ seats work together to get it passed through parliament.
So, never ... :(
In germany we have a system where every region elects their representative just like in britain, but there are about double the seats. The remaining seats get filled such that you get total proportional representation. This may even lead to needing some extra seats sometimes, which is done if needed. I think this system is better because every region still has its representative, while at the same time making sure that every vote counts.
For that reason in germany we always have coalitions governing (at least in modern times). So politicians are forced to compromise, extreme positions usually don't get a majority.
This is why I vote AFD but dont live in Germany full time. It makes me laugh. To be fair, it is because I cant vote for anyone else because they are mainly corrupt corporate puppets but it is rewardind to vote in germany. The UK should have proportional representation. For example, the UK scottish national party have 55 seats but a tiny proportion of votes.
gosh mate, you got such replies.. xD
As a fan, you say this isn't bias yet we all know why you're talking about it now. This happens in every election.
That doesn’t mean it’s biased, he has talked about the disparity in votes before and is just reporting on it this election, looking at his data snp are clearly the most overrated party, winning 80% of the seat with 40% of the vote!!
he's reporting now because there's recent data
I would go as far and say that the current electoral system is "undemocratic". Isnt the the definition of democracy that the people decide who is going to govern? That does not work if only a few votes count. In a fair system EVERY vote matters.
This you get when those who are voted into office also make rules how to vote. UK politician like like to use phrases like mother of parliaments and mother of democracy yet UK system is most undemocratic from all democracies, votes are literally thrown into dumpster and there are many inconveniences to outright obstacles to even cast vote.
I think the UK should adopt a MMP system for parliament, STV for electing the prime minister and Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales should have their own parliament
So you say your political system is actually not a democracy because it does not reflect the will of the people? Because how can it be that parties need a different number of votes to be represented in parliament? ... and the whole time Nigel fought for Brexit because the EU is undemocratic. yeah, well... (whoever has the damage need not worry about the mockery (old german figure of speech))
I am really happy that you made this. Thanks 😊
funny how nobody complained when UKIP got 4millions votes yet only had one MP isn't it ?
I bet you did complain tho lmao
Quite a lot of people complained. Basically every party except for Labour and Conservative and even then many Labour supporters did.
Even though I disagree fundamentally with UKIP, I think it's vastly unfair.
@@thesuomi8550 Nope, but if you need to think that to justify your own feelings now then by all means think it.
as much as I completely disagreed with UKIP (and still do) I will always suggest that was a travesty of 'democracy' that left 4 million people almost voiceless in politics.
The reason we have this system is so the more rural areas aren’t consistently ruled by dense urban areas.
Did you get that from the weak arguments list that the Americans use?
@@jannoottenburghs5121 So how is that supposedly a weak argument then?
Janno_O right because if the US was a pure democracy, The coasts would rule the country. Couldn’t think of anything worse than the Midwest being ruled by California and New York voters... especially given the current state of uber-liberal, corrupt cities like NY, LA and SF. The vote in the U.K. will reflect in the US because our political ties and trends are so close. Trump will win by a greater amount than he did previously because the democrats have pushed too far left. It’s inevitable.
@@zteaxon7787 the way SlovesL responded explains it just fine why he just copied it from Americans.
The way he links a US democrat landslide because of the 2 coastlines with the UK is fascinating since it doesn't even results in a Labour majority (like you see in the video)
@@jannoottenburghs5121 I know but the factvthey try and delegitimize a 365 vs 203 election result as if it wasn't clear or uncontested enough is mindboggling. They always were absurd but you can only state the obvious so many times I guess we'll always have to call out the liar even when he has a megaphone on repeat and we'd rather do other things. We should remove them at some point isn't it? Even though they always try to illegitimately remove us and it makes you hesitant to allow such a thing. There's a thing called justice and these people don't define it and we have to abide by it.
Under a proportional representation system, I assume Nigel Farage wouldn't have stood down all Brexit Party candidates in the 317 Conservative-held seats. And since those seats were the areas they likely would have performed better in, the Brexit Party would have won a lot more seats while the Conservatives lost more. They were polling at about 10% before Farage announced he would not contest any Conservative seats, and afterwards their support dropped by about half. I reckon they would have performed about as well as the Liberal Democrats did.
I think the problem is with any voting system is that regardless of how you reach a result the representation is only going to be minimally effective on how we govern things because most decisions come down to a yes or no answer. Should we leave the EU: Y/N? for example. This presents a problem and that problem is that regardless of how educated you are or how nuanced your opinions are at the end of the day you're forced to make an absolute in either case. This drives polarisation because you maybe think like a particular one answer to an issue, but at the same time understand where the opposition is coming from, well under this binary system that middle ground just isn't important.
The problem isn't representation as much as it's a fundamental problem with how we tackle issues and rarely (at least in politics) look for a middle way to solve issues. You can hold two or more positions in one topic/issue, but our system can't and won't account for that. Just as a vague example you might be against Abortion in principle, but are also for Women's Right to have one within sufficient reason. In our current system you'd be forced to take one side or another. This in my opinion is what needs to change. Proportional Representation will just add more cooks to the broth and that maybe a good thing in some circumstances or bad in others. Representation is all well and good, but it's not perfect either. Who knows. Maybe we should try it for one or two election cycles here in the UK and see how it pans out.
Under this system. Monster reigning Looney party would get a single seat.
Well....good.
Do they support Brexit? 😂
@@Samuel88853 just looked it up, they suggested involving Noel Edmonds because he understands Deal or No Deal :P
Why not though? If people are voting for them then they deserve to have a seats. It doesn't matter whether we agree with them or not.
Then that shows you just how bad politics is right now 😂
Poor timing of the video, makes it look like sour grapes.
Pretty much
When should the release a video examining the actual voter preferences vs the actual election results? Before the election?
This is just an analysis of voting systems. If it makes you feel better just pretend they are animals being voted on for the jungle council....
QUEEN LION INTENSIFIES
@@dstinnettmusic But I am not ill?
Love how we cry for reform when it doesn't go our way 😂
Shaman 966 people have been arguing for electoral reform for decades. I love how those who benefit the most from this dreadful system say it's perfect.
Lee J just because it's occasionally proportional doesn't make it ok.
I'm not even a labour supporter, nice of you to assume so.
Voting is spelt wrong at 5:47 where it says requiring voters to provide identification before voting
most people forget, you don't elect the government, you elect the person you want to represent you local area in parliament. The system as it is, is the most fairest, and the only ones who deny this are the ones who are upset because they are not in power!
That's an even worse argument for first past the post. A single constituency gets one MP, so all the people who didn't vote for that MP would feel dissatisfied. In a swing constituency with many viable parties that can be a huge proportion of the population, like 70% huge. At least on the government level it's closer to most people liking the party in power. It doesn't matter who is in power, the system is broken and needs changing. I still rag on the electoral college in america even though the party I liked more won the last election.
@@jackwolowacz9382 no its not! In the UK we live in a democracy, the one with the most votes wins, they become that area's MP. The Party who gains the most MP's, is invited by the monarch to form a government. Its the best system.
Proportionate representation makes a mockery of democracy, you end up with never one party gaining a majority, and you end up with noting ever getting done.
The college system is perverse, in that the population never get to actually directly vote for their representative.
The UK had a referendum on PR, the majority voted to keep first past the post.
@@jackwolowacz9382 If we want to talk about what is truly fair in UK politics, how is it possibly fair that the likes of the SNP be able to meddle, interfere, impede, and vote on things that only effect England, that in Scotland, N. Ireland, and Wales are devolved matters, and with no input from Westminster.
@@James_Rivett If a party can't get a majority in proportional representation, then they're failing to be a good enough party.
In your argument as to why our democracy is good, you simply described it and then said "it's the best system".
If a party isn't strong enough to get an outright majority on it's own, then it has to compromise and either change its policies to appeal to more voters, or form a coalition with another party. In either case, the policies of more voters are considered, meanwhile in the currently very disproportionate system we have now, the conservatives, who in many constituencies do not even have a majority, have absolute power within their constituency until the next election. That's what happens when you have FPTP as your voting system. It's broken.
And on the country-wide level, the system still produces disproportionate MPs according to the national vote. If you truly want the least "perverse" democracy, you'd advocate for a direct democracy.
There was a referendum on the alternative vote, not PR and they are in fact different, but both conservatives and labour flooded the people with misinformation about the ranked voting system, and resulted in the voting system that benefits the larger parties remaining the one we use.
@@jackwolowacz9382 you are talking out of you arse!
Single Transferable Vote is the way forward imo..
There's a great series of videos from CGP Grey explaining the whole concept
Problem is we are fast becoming a one party nation, and if we allow it to happen then we could be in real danger of becoming a dictatorship.
Don't I remember that Labour saying they wanted to introduce PR during their past government? We have it in Scotland and it was introduced by a party who knew they would be worse off, yet did it because its fair.
5:06 Just throwing an idea out there as I can't quite parse it in my head:
Would it work better (and maintain the links between MPs and constituents) if we added a certain number of non-constituency MPs to parliament to make up the missing percentage? Has that method been tried before?
Germany and New Zealand have this voting system. Its called mixed member proportional system.
As a german i can say it does represent people more accurately, but our parliament has 709 mp because of this system and we are looking for some sort of reform to make it smaller right now.
You’ve summed up the reason against proportional representation pretty well. It would encourage more extreme (hard left or hard right) from entering into parliament plus we would see constant hung parliaments. A good size chunk of Tory and Labour votes would’ve gone to the Brexit party and a bit of Labour and Lib Dem to Greens
Spot on, Tory and labour votes would shrink to less than 30% of the vote with the greens and parties like Brexit would rise to around 15%. Nothing would ever get done, much like the stalemate over Brexit we saw under May’s minority government
"If you can't win, change the rules"
Proportional representation brings with it a different set of problems. It concentrates political power in the more populated area, which could lead to issues in more lightly populated areas ignored. This would be exacerbated by the removal of the link between the constiuency and the representative, as you mentioned. I think ranked choice voting, in which the voter ranks their choices from most preferable to least preferable and the candidates with the lowest vote total has their vote redistributed to the others until a candidate gets a majority of the vote, would likely be the most fair change to first past the post.
Most people don't care for their local representative. They vote because of party affiliation, not because they like them soo much. The heck, plenty of MPs don't even really live in the constituency they represent. So who cares if that part is scratched?
But even if you do want to keep it: just reform the house of lords into something like the US senate then.
PS: its inherently undemocratic to give rural areas more voting power then cities. Just like it would be if men had more voting power then women, because they are fewer, or blacks vs. whites etc.
The power is at least, less concentrated than now. And it should be concentrated with the masses
but even under the current system less populated areas get less seats than more populated areas...
It's to little to late I feel. The Tories have in there manifesto that they will redraw constituencie borders and will like lead to very gerrymandered seats. Unless something fundamentally changes the Tories will just keep winning Majorities.
The fundamental change that would work the best is an opposition party people actually like.
bigangryscotsman they're basically going to just rig the next election.
@@Infinitystar225 and the electorate will praise them for it calling it smart politics.
bigangryscotsman probably
@@Infinitystar225
Imagine being so unpopular the only way you can rationalise it is the enemy is cheating.
XD
The Brexit party did very well in the European elections which were decided with proportional representation.
and in a democracy the voice of the Brexit Party (or other small parties) should be heared, anyone is free to disagree afterwards or to applaude them
I think they should rank candidates instead of proportional voting. I wish that was an option in the survey
I never remember this arguement being pushed when UKIP had millions of votes but zero seats... the "game" is as it is. It is flawed but constituencies need local representation rather than taking the UK as one whole community as it clearly is not.
...mmp...
I actually do remember UKIP and other parties pushing for some kind of electoral reform at some point. Also, there are proportional voting systems that actually take more local results into account, though these are not (and no election system is) perfect. The elections for MEPs show what I'm pretty sure, but not absolutely certain, it a proportional voting system that maintains some form of local representation.
While I think local representation is important, most people don't even know who their MP is, so I don't think it's important enough to stop reform to the system. Perhaps making the house of lords into a proportionally elected assembly (to replace the EU elections we no longer need to do, meaning we still have three main elections- general, council and perfectly proportional for the 'other place') is the way to go, as then you maintain local representation from MPs in the commons.
But the "game" can be fairer. There are better options that also allow for proportional local representation, and help mitigate the effects of gerrymandering. Surely if you believe in democracy, then you believe the representation should be fair and accurate across the board? Because right now it is not.
Ranked choice voting 🗳
which form? as in: should all parties/candidates be ranked or should a top 3 be given, will a vote still be counted if someone only votes for 1 party anyway or is the vote then discarded, do all votes count with a different weight (as in: number of first places counts more then number of second places, but it is possible to get placed second by everyone in the country and then still win), or do you prefer the system where peoples votes go to their second choice if their first choice does not get a seat?
@@iwndegraaf1055 you're describing several other systems.
Ranked/single transferable means you rank the candidates in order
If no one gets 50%, they eliminate the weakest candidate and all their votes move to people's second choice until someone does have a majority
@@Joesolo13 thanks for explaining.
doesn't that carry the risk of having to do multiple recounts, making the wait for results take mulitple days after the election?
And that’s why this entire format is infuriating.
The major problem going on as well is that you have all the power be centralized in large urban centers, it's the same in the states, the voting power would go to california new york, texas and florida, with most other states votes no longer mattering.
While the first past the post system is flawed, so is direct representation, either way you get peoples voices being ignored.
Very good point. The UK already has a huge town/country divide and it's important for people to understand why we have our system the way it is.
I have to disagree with that. For one the 100 biggest cities of the USA only make up less than 20% of the population. Along with that the states you mentioned do matter, but way less than they should. Most are fixed Red/Bleu states and thus candidates don't need to spend any time and money there since people would already vote for them anyways.
Which is why the blue wall in the last general elections started flipping, and Reagen, a republican had republican california. IT was stated that clintons major mistake was not campaigning in seats she assumed she would win. Same with how traditional labour seats flipped conservative, really were you not paying attention to the UK elections?
And for america at least, the reason voting by representation doesn't work is due to the fact that that each state needs needs protections, imagine living in a small town, but all your farming and water laws or ways of life get dictated by some person in a large city a fair distence away.
I should start by telling you I'm from the United States and, as you're probably aware, we do not have a Parliamentary system. So you can certainly take that into account when evaluating my opinion. That said, here is my opinion (for what it's worth).
While on the surface it may seem fair to have a "proportional electoral system" as described in this video, it's important to note that one of the effects of such a system is the "nationalizing" of election results, i.e. people outside of your local area of representation get some say in who gets elected to represent you. The left in the United States uses this argument against the system we use to elect our President, the "electoral college." The downside of nationalizing elections in this way is that populated urban centers (which necessarily have a different sub-culture than rural areas) end up effectively usurping rural representation and forcing their views on people they do not understand and who will ultimately view this as "foreign" intervention in their local affairs. The reason this is an important consideration is that this is a situation that tends to cause people to "split from the group," e.g. Brexit, Scottish independence, or State secession in the U.S. People (down to a very local level) need to feel they have their own voice in order to feel "fairly" represented and to help prevent a larger-scale (national) majority from running roughshod over the minority.
If your vote got you representation then you're a happy bunny. Outside of that each of us still needs representation proportional to how we voted. Fast past the post is a winner takes it all scenario. The first thing every new government is redraw the electoral boundaries in their favour. The argument that FPTP produces strong government. The last few years have disproved that.
No talk of Sinn Féin’s 7 seats ?
Of course with a DIFFERENT SYSTEM the results would be DIFFERENT. but if we had a DIFFERENT SYSTEM
1: People would have VOTED DIFFERENTLY
2: The campaign would have been FOUGHT DIFFERENTLY
Is this bad somehow?
@@svenwillett1750 not at all, but trying to say "the majority of the country didn't vote for them, we need proportional rep" is just silly since you're equating two different systems and the results would have been completely different
@@Flame1500 oh okay
@@Flame1500 however the election would almost certainly have seen greater representation of smaller parties in a more proportional system, as the current system encourages tactical voting
Anthony Bracuti i agree, i honestly dont mind FPTP cause otherwise we would just have hung parliament after hung parliament. and let’s not forget that the uk voted on having electoral reform and a change in the voting system in 2011 and of the 40% that decided to vote, the overwhleming majority voted to stay with FPTP
I do not think PR better represents people as you do not vote for the person you want to represent you , just a list of names: also parliaments then require significant compromises, that give no one what they want, a complete lack of direction and lack leadership and process driven incompetence- see EU vaccine!! - also PR is subject to much more cronyism and a lack of voter accountability ( which politicians love) - first past the post you are voting for the actual person as opposed to PR which is a list of unknown names that may not even be from your area. This is demonstrated by MEP Nigel Farage- he could not get voted in in first past the post in the UK but easily elected PR as his name was on top of the list ( and his closest friends 2nd and 3rd on the list!!- and cronyism at is best! and what the EU is full of). I can not this of a worse system than PR it terms of true democracy. Only the losers want PR - maybe they should just change their policies and people to become more representative of what people want - then they may win !!
Further more Jo Swinson got voted out of parliament by her constituents in 2019 because she did not represent their view ; in PR she would still be touting her same rhetoric without he backing of her constituency- again demonstrating PR is completely undemocratic. First past the post is brutal but directly answerable to the people- only career or unpopular politicians fear it
,,Funny how there was no outrage in 2005. Labour 66 majority on just 35%.!!
" - Totally agree as a German!