And when it happens and you only get deadlocks between parties because nobody can agree on anything, not even on who the pm is, then what? Then you don't have any sort of effective government. Then you get the most stuffy bureaucrat type PM who makes the most compromises to everyone and achieves NONE OF the ambitions of anyone. So noone is ever happy with anything, but we crawl on onwards nonetheless. As a result, no important changes can ever be made. It's a bit like having a constitution that you can never or hardly ever change, only with GREAT difficulty. It's nothing but an obstacle to growth, change and innovation. At least with the current system, you give them a chance. And if you don't like the changes they made, you can throw them out the next time
In other words, there's a reason why the countries that are English speaking and have established themselves as the world leaders have the system that they have. And they've always had it historically. Those european countries with proportional representation who this guy is trying to emulate never had effective government once. The only reason to emulate them is to become as weak and ineffective on the world stage as they are. To become a follower, rather than a leader. What's the point of that? Look at the EU - it's hardly a leader. It's so slow to make changes. Literally takes decades to pass through legislation and make any sort of effective changes because of the sheer amount of red tape and political counter opinions you have to go through, which you can't ever overpower with any sort of election
One good thing about this video is that it speaks to everybody, using examples from the left and right of politics. And it's true. No matter what side you're on, PR will more accurately reflect your votes.
We won't get PR while we still have Tory or Labour running the country, it's not in their interests to change things. We had a chance for PR in 2011 but the Tories watered down the vote to the useless AV one, knowing it wouldn't get through. We need PR!
@@walker1054 The Labour Party can’t form a coalition government with the conservatives. They disagree on virtually everything. They would have to form a coalition government with either the SNP(god forbid) or the Liberal Democrat’s who would most likely want a retry when it comes to the alternative vote referendum. Just as you said that is how we get a proportional representation voting system .
@@sismail4689 Yep. If the 2015 UK general election had used AV, the result would have been less proportional than under FPTP. The Conservatives had a 36.9% vote share in that election: Under FPTP, the election gave them 50.9% of the seats. Under AV that would have been 51.8% AV Plus goes some way to address this, but this is still regarded as "semi-proportional".
Where was everybody when the Liberal Democrats where calling for this over the Last 30 years!! The Liberal Democrats even got everybody a referendum on the subject in 2011.
I'm Canadian and you have no idea how disappointed I was when our current government broke their campaign promise to end FPTP elections in Canada :/ We keep trying but the political parties that benefit the most from FPTP are the ones making the laws so I'm not sure how hopeful I am.
It's MADNESS that we have to guess at the best tactical vote, by voting for our 2nd or 3rd choice, just to stop our 5th choice getting in. And we often guess wrong and get the exact opposite of what we intended. With trust in politicians at an all time low, it's time to restore some faith in democracy by Making Every Vote Matter, with PR.
Here in Canada, we've had several unsuccessful attempts to implement PR on a provincial level, and many of us are disappointed that our current Prime Minister broke his promise to implement it on the national level after being elected in 2015. My home province alone has had 3 unsuccessful attempts to replace electing our provincial parliament with some form of PR to replace FPTP. The latest one (as of posting this) was a mail-in referendum last year, making it as easy as possible for the demographics less likely to want change to participate. As such, more than 60% of the votes counted were in favour of maintaining our current system. I can certainly tell you that few frequent voters my hometown wanted to keep the status quo, and the results did show that. But, we found out the hard way that there were too many more willing to participate, who didn't want the change to happen. Really disappointing.
FPTP is unfair, but in a Proportional System, MPs would lose the connection to their constituency. The solution of the problem would be introducing the following electoral system: 1. All parties get their seats proportionally. e.g. if party X gets 10% of all votes for a parliament with 100 seats, it'll get 10 seats 2. The country is divided into constituencies. For party X, that gained 10 seats, the country is divided into 10 constituencies. Each constituency contains the same number of party X voters. For party Y, we take another map of the country. Party Y gained 2 seats, thus the country is divided into 2 constituencies, with the equal number of party Y voters living there. 3. In each constituency the respective party announces candidates that run for the seat. Then the voters elect their representative amongst these candidates. Every area of the country would be covered with as many constituencies as parties that made it into the parliament. For example, party A is the biggest, so it gained the largest number of constituencies. In each of them the people can choose their party A-representative. Party B, that gained only one seat, will get a single nation-wide constituency, where people can choose the only party B-representative. This system would be proportional and it would contain single member constituencies, so that regional interests can be represented. Furthermore, EVERY representative would be voted in a single member constituency, unlike the Mixed-Member-System.
Great video. Why do people in this country put up with this unfair system in the UK? Join the Electoral Reform Society or write to your MP and find out who agrees with you. Either way, try to get rid of this undemocratic present system.
Agreed. I think the systems we have in Australia are pretty good, but the NZ system might be even better. I'd like to see instant run-off for your local members, not first-past the post. Although the damage from FPTP is minimised because of the party vote, and it _is_ easier to understand for people who don'y pay much attention to elections.
A petition to her Majesty the Queen signed by the majority of the British electorate would send a strong message that we would prefer a fairer voting system.
The AV referendum held a few years ago was won by the First-Past-the-Posters because the case for AV was so appallingly put together. It was truly dreadful and just succeeded in confusing everyone. Something like the Cleese approach would have been so much better.
No, I'm not saying that, @@dimitrisblane6368. I'm saying they voted to keep FPTP because, quite frankly, the campaign in favour of AV was so confusingly dire, that it almost persuaded ME that FPTP was better.
Can't argue with that @@Rufus535, although AV is a nod in the direction of more democracy. FPTP is really only appropriate where there are no more than TWO parties or TWO candidates.
In Australia we have preferential voting which is similar. Also voting is compulsory for Australian citizens, 18 years and above. I noticed that only about 60% of people voted in the election in UK. Obviously the other 40% don't care.
The UK had a chance to swap to a mixed-system called the Additional Member System. It combines the current system and proportional representation. Used in Scotland, there was a referendum to apply it nationwide in 2010. It failed. Only about 32% of citizens voted in favour.
MMP Proportional Representation works really well here in New Zealand. Half our MPs are local electorate MPs, half are list MPs to preserve the right proportion.
I'd reject any proposal for MMP, has the same spoiler effect as FPTP if there aren't enough list seats, Labour devolved scotland and wales with MMP (probably as a perverse way to keep labour in power in scotland and wales) but made the list seats 1/3 and people there have to vote tactically because of it. (not to mention dirty tactics like making a regional party and a "totally independent" list party).
*I wish I could sign this petition but I'm a I wish I could sign this petition but I'm an Indian citizen & it still will take time for me to get British citizenship !!! So I guess I have to wait.*
1:59 also consider that, in 2015, the Conservatives won the majority of their districts with only a plurality of the vote share. Even the places the Tories won didn't generally support them.
Certainly Do need that system here in the U K , how can Reform get 4 Million votes and get 5 M Ps , yet Libdems get 3.5 Million & get 71 seats , & Labour get 30% of the votes and form a big majority in Parliament, we do need change before its to late , or is it already to late ? 😉 Reform should have Won . I agree with you 💯% and have signed the petition 👍
In the US, a Bill is introduced that would allow up to 5 House members to represent a single district and elected through single transferable vote. It's called the Fair Representation Act.
We need to give the one third of the people who voted for proportional voting their preferred voting method. I'd gladly take that system in the US, however.
Democracy is a marathon, not a sprint. The hostility, distrust and partisanship we see in Britain today is not indicative of a healthy democracy. Democracy is about finding common middle ground, recognising that nobody really has all the answers. Democracy is not winners and losers, that's just a form of tyranny. TLDR: PR > FPTP
We would end up like America (divided on party lines) with PR and everyone being represented no party would be in charge like the Conservatives are now
@@fireiron369 We're already like America, that's the problem. We basically have a 2 party system and America isn't PR, it's predominantly FPTP. You say that nobody being in charge is a bad thing. I think it would promote cooperation and compromise between parties and people of different opinions rather than the situation we have now where one group of people manage to get a majority in parliament despite not representing the majority of people.
Because it would make winning an election harder for Labour and the Conservatives. They don’t want this system because the current system allows them to be complacent, the only thing they have to worry about is each other when it comes to elections . That being said there were labour MPs who supported the alternative vote back in 2011 but their party was split on it . This means that if the Labour Party were to be in a coalition government with the Lib Dem’s and the Lib Dem’s demanded an alternative vote referendum as part of the agreement then we could see an alternative vote actually being implemented in our country if the people voted for it.
In history class at school I learned that PR means that the government rarely has enough of a majority (there are too many differing views on everything with too much power), meaning that nothing ever gets achieved because there’s nobody in parliament powerful enough to veto a decision. I can’t say I agree or disagree but I’d like it if someone explained why this is correct or incorrect.
Here in Austria (a land with proportional representation), I am glad that we don't use FPTP for electing our representatives. I live in a region where the conservative People's Party of Austria won every election since WW2 and thus, I'd waste my vote if I don't vote the People's Party, because candidates of other parties wouldn't have any chance. That would make me very pissed off because I am center-left.
I uses to think PR would be good but now I think it would lead to no decisions being able to be made, there are vested interests in not letting the people get what they want, common sense would never do. Somebody needs to ROCK THE BOAT.
Good video & explanation as I dont think most people understand what it means.How telling that the 3 countries with this system are almost the most wealthy .Trump wouldnt have won if they had PR. in germany they have a reasonable Green party representation because of PR.Problem is the 2 main parties which benefit from FPP arent likely to allow the change
This is why I don’t like that the video compared PR, which is a system of representation, with FPTP, which is a system of voting. These are different facets. The President of the US by nature is a single seat, so PR couldn’t apply - you can’t elect a president who‘s 45% Democrat and 45% Republican. And when choosing who to assign seats to in PR, there are multiple methods of voting to choose from.
FPTP is a terrible system. Already signed up to this. The bit I don't get though is how many seats would we need in parliament? It would be good to have a more modern UK parliament that removes the oppositional pantomime. Also rules on filibustering should be introduced. Subscribed and followed thanks.
North-East Somerset was a Labour constituency until 2010; it contains several industrial areas and there's every chance that a socialist could find their vote counting there with a big enough national swing.
Awesome. Excellent channel. Great video. P.R voting system is badly needed for Britain. The British House of Commons should elect all British 650 MP's under STV or P.R voting system like Ireland or Italy model for UK.
In Germany we have a system of both and Proportional Representation has the problem of people in the Parliament that completly depend on the lists of the partys and so have the most loyalty to the party, not the people.... all has pros and cons...
That isn't always true of all party list systems. Some like in Finland have open lists not closed lists. And Baden Wuerttemberg doesn't use lists, they use the best runner ups in the Wahlkries elections.
@The secular humanist To be more precise, Die Parteigezetz outlines important rules. Delegates, if parties use them, which they do, must be elected by secret ballot, and if those who vote for delegates are themselves delegates, they in turn are elected by secret ballot all the way down. Lists are also compiled by the state level parties for federal elections not by the federal party, and this means that while a party like the CDU has about a thousand delegates at national Parteitage, the number of delegates involved in the state lists is a lot more. And each constituency chooses a candidate, and the state party has basically no choice but to.include candidates nominated in each constituency in the list somewhere, and so the state delegates are more so thinking of the order in which the candidates are on the list and sometimes a few star candidates get nominated without being chosen by any constituency but they must be given such endorsement by the delegate vote. The Parteigezetz also dictates that the party hold a Parteitag every two years at least, and they elect by secret ballot the members of their party board, including their chairperson who would be the candidate for chancellor if they get into the government. The Parteitage also approves of the electoral manifesto and of coalition agreements, the SPD has the additional step of requiring a member vote to ratify such agreements. This means that the party leader has to face a vote of confidence at least once every two years in practice, not something present in parties like either of the parties which have governed Canada.
PR is a great system, but if we’d had it in 2015 we’d have (and still have) a Conservative and UKIP coalition. So don’t just support it to believe that there would automatically be more left wing governments as that won’t always be the case.
I wonder if JC would stick by this comment after what just happened with Reform. I've seen him worm around a few political issues and this would probably be one of them.
Subject: Cherished World Champion voting system I propose the following voting system as a much fairer alternative to our present one, Its name refers to the hope that Britain should set a good example to the rest of the world in its democratic practice, to help shame the dictatorships and biased systems of the world into putting their people's needs first before their own pathetic and malevolent selfishness. My late father's initials were C.W.C. Clarence Wilson Clough and he strongly believed in fairness. At the next Election....... Firstly a citizen's manifesto should be compiled as a result of unbiased questions suggested and approved by the public and parliament.This could be filled in on-line or even at the polling stations during elections (refreshments being greatfully provided to the willing participants for their voluntary effort!) When it comes to voting the only change would be that the voting paper would have an empty box at the bottom in which the voter could put a number. The number would refer to a name on display in the polling station,and perhaps as many as 50 candidates would be standing as national representatives with their numbers next to them,(a bit like dishes are printed out in a Chinese takeaway restaurant.) These representatives would represent a constituency of opinion, and in picking one, the voter would automatically abstain from being able to vote for their local choice. Every Vote Will Count! When the votes are counted there will be four kinds of representation One : The person with the most votes will be the local M.P. Two : The unsuccessful local candidates will be able to vote on behalf of the voters who chose them in each debate in the House of Commons.(This would be via an internet connection to the speaker).They would enjoy this privilege no matter how few voted for them,they would not however be allowed to speak or act as an M.P.(unless perhaps the legitimate M.P.hired them as a locum, in the case of ill health e.t.c.) Three: Any individual will be able to vote on their own behalf if they register with the speaker via the speakers office (as opposed to picking a representative.) Four: The national representatives will be able to vote on behalf of everyone who voted for them and take part in the life of the House of Commons (just like the M.P.'s). Finally,votes will be proportional with support i.e.(If 6 million people vote for a national candidate they would have a vote 100 times greater than a local M.P. who only got 60,000 votes.) These votes would be individually recognised by a kind of credit card voting system on the floor of the commons.(A graphic display of the vote could also be exhibited to interest children and adults with learning difficulties.) The speaker would vote for or against any motion according to the electronic poll her or his computer would register, (as a result of the contact of the unsuccessful local candidates) and individual (one vote voters). I hope you are interested in my system, I would be very happy to discuss it with you or see it surpassed by a better or fairer idea Yours Sincerely Elton S.P.Clough
But there was a referendum about changing the FPTP system, I think in 2010/11. Proposal was rejected by almost 73%, yet it was implemented using the proposed PR method, which is extremely peculiar if you think about it. You legitimize you voting system using the up to then sub-optimal and as such dismissed method.
As a boy i remember when i was doing history and we studied the weimar Republic and the ruse of the nazis and you know what really fucked the political systems in Germany and other countries like Italy.........proportional representation and continues to mess up there systems no matter what you have things will not be perfect acting like the grass will be greener on tbe other side has led humanity into some of its darkest times and even if we did switch people still would not be happy
While I'm not suggesting that anyone should (or does) move to areas because of its politics, apart from a few extreme examples (Brighton, Bristol). The examples given here for why the local representative model doesn't work doesn't quite scan. If your party in your area didn't win, then why should that party's votes be lumped together with diffuse votes from across the party? No, a socialist in a tory area won't feel represented, because they're a socialist in a tory area. As for the idea of encouraging lots of radically different parties all sharing more of the seats in parliament: how do expect parliament to vote? How do you make them all vote yes or no on policies? Or will it be yes, no and maybe. You then have to get analysts to work if it was a 'yes maybe' or a 'no maybe'. Or will it be like Europe, where smaller more radical parties are bullied into submission by the larger parties?
Those examples do scan. Under a proportional system a socialist in a conservative area or a right-winger in a left wing city would both have their votes matter, whereas, in the current system, they have no ability to democratically affect the outcome. That's the point, and there's really no getting around that. Also, your argument that 'of course a socialist won't feel represented by a Tory MP, but they live in a Tory area' not only goes against the supposed virtue of FPTP, that MPs represent their constituents, but is also wrong on another level. In most recent general elections, a majority of seats are won by a candidate who received less than 50% of the vote, meaning 100% of that constituency's representation is going to a minority of voters, while the majority in the area get 0% local representation.
3 of the people displayed at 2:14 are no longer leaders of their respective parties, also a bit odd how you haven't mentioned that the devolved administrations use a form of PR
You don't have a clue, do you Matt? PR has nothing to do with who you vote for - notice the massive over-representation of the Labour win a few years ago - this is to do with fairness.
@@hyweltthomas *You don't have a clue, do you Matt?* Yes, I do actually. Clearly you don't though. *PR has nothing to do with who you vote for* Well done *_BUT_* Tories know the UK is a left leaning country and with PR conservatives wouldn't stand a chance in elections, therefore they are AGAINST things like AV and PR. *- notice the massive over-representation of the Labour win a few years ago - this is to do with fairness.* WTF? :-/
@@Matt_Mosley1983 "Left leaning country" - what are you on about? Even with the stupid FPTP system Labour and Conservative have shared power for the past 17 years - the same before that. And, even with the recent Tory cockups, Labour made very little headway in the last election. In the 2011 referendum, Labour effectively abstained from voting for PR (Or AV as it was called) - perhaps if they felt strongly about it, they would have at least adopted some position. Both the big parties want to keep the status quo. Your logic doesn't make sense.
Depends on the system adopted. If we did it the way the Germans do it and had a constituency vote and a proportional list vote, we could have half as many constituencies that are double the size they are now, and the other half of seats in the commons would be elected to regional lists to ensure proportionality. Or you could go the most common route and simply have regions/constituencies that elect 10+ people each off a party list system. OR have slightly smaller constituencies with 3-6 MPs each and adopt ranked choice voting. However it ended up being done, it's certainly possible, and would result in much fairer outcomes for the majority of voters.
But let’s just say 51% of every constituency voted conservative, every elected official would be conservative, with 49% of votes going to other parties, so who would fill that 49% of seats ? The other parties yes but who would decide who sits in those seats and which of the winning conservatives would be excluded ?
@@20quid I'm not picking, they are. If you want to change something so significantly like how we run our country, you say exactly what you're arguing for.
Americans are approaching it from another angle, found at www.unrig.net/action-plan-phase-ii/ and think UNRig would work much better than bothering their head about PR. Concentrate upon what you are aiming to achieve, not on the means of doing so. UNrig is a destination, while PR is the means..
Unrig is about dealing with Gerrymandering, which means re-drawing electoral boundaries with the deliberate intention to create disproportional results in favour of one party, thereby fixing the election. Under PR, the results must be proportional, and therefore gerrymandering is impossible.
I think that proportional representation is a better voting method then first-past-the-post. However, you have to be careful of too many parties winning seats and leading to chaos.
ARE YOU COMING TO TOMMYS RALLY ON 27TH JULY TRAFALGAR SQUARE? THOUGHT TO BE 50,000 STRONG THIS TIME..GRANDMAS, KIDS, BLACKS, SIHKS, YOUNG OLD, PATRIOTS OF EVERY ETHNICITY GOING..JOIN THIS MOVEMENT JOHN, OR CAN YOU COVER IT ON YR CHANNEL AS MAINSTREAM MEDIA ARE CALLING IT FAR RIGHT AS USUAL X
My gran once said that politics isn't about cooperating with other parties and listening their views; it's about upsetting the least amount of people as possible. This was after I told her about how a minority voted for the conservatives and yet they recieved a majority of seats
I have just today been reading that countries voters are much happier when they have proportional representation but England, Australia and the United States persist with first past the post. JUST what are our Westminster, Australian and American governments so worried about that they are so against PR?
Hey Guys, can I use some of this for my upcoming short film? It advocates for changing our current political system to use proportional voting! Let me know please!
Is it not called Simple Majority and not FPTP? All electoral systems are first past the Post - it just depends where the post is. Using some PR systems the "post" is set by the Droop Quota.
A lot of electoral systems are poorly named. FPTP might be better off known as WTA (winner takes all), because that is they way it works in each constituency. The winning candidate gets all of the representation, everyone else gets nothing.
In truth, we only have limited FPTP in the United States. It is only used for Presidential elections - which are obviously very important. The presidential election in the US is controlled by the electoral college, which allocates 100% of a state's electoral votes to whomever received the most votes in that state - regardless of whether they obtained a majority. But in congressional and gubernatorial elections, you still have to win an outright majority, either in an initial or runoff election. (I know, this is a video intended for British viewers, but this is an important point of clarification.)
Not true on two counts. The President is elected via the Electoral College, which I wouldn’t count as FPTP because the people don’t vote for the president directly. It‘s more like a two-tier system where each state selects their slate of electors by plurality, and then those electors decide the President by _majority_ - in other words if a candidate doesn’t get more than 50% of the electoral vote, then that vote doesn’t count and it’s instead decided by the House. For just about every other offices from the US Senate to your local school board, those are all single-seat elections that are decided by a plurality of votes, i.e. FPTP.
As an American I really hope we can all get our shit together.
I want to have proportional voting system in Hungary too. It should be a global movement.
God I wish we had proportional representation
It may be finally happening! Labour just voted in favour of it
America especially needs it badly
And when it happens and you only get deadlocks between parties because nobody can agree on anything, not even on who the pm is, then what? Then you don't have any sort of effective government.
Then you get the most stuffy bureaucrat type PM who makes the most compromises to everyone and achieves NONE OF the ambitions of anyone. So noone is ever happy with anything, but we crawl on onwards nonetheless.
As a result, no important changes can ever be made. It's a bit like having a constitution that you can never or hardly ever change, only with GREAT difficulty. It's nothing but an obstacle to growth, change and innovation. At least with the current system, you give them a chance. And if you don't like the changes they made, you can throw them out the next time
In other words, there's a reason why the countries that are English speaking and have established themselves as the world leaders have the system that they have. And they've always had it historically.
Those european countries with proportional representation who this guy is trying to emulate never had effective government once. The only reason to emulate them is to become as weak and ineffective on the world stage as they are. To become a follower, rather than a leader. What's the point of that?
Look at the EU - it's hardly a leader. It's so slow to make changes. Literally takes decades to pass through legislation and make any sort of effective changes because of the sheer amount of red tape and political counter opinions you have to go through, which you can't ever overpower with any sort of election
No its leads to hung governments stupid idea
We need Proportional Representation
If only the mainstream TV channels would show this.
One good thing about this video is that it speaks to everybody, using examples from the left and right of politics. And it's true. No matter what side you're on, PR will more accurately reflect your votes.
Made 5 years ago and very, very true!
Great to hear John's voice behind this - can remember the original! Would be great to achieve PR while he's still around. #MVM
We won't get PR while we still have Tory or Labour running the country, it's not in their interests to change things. We had a chance for PR in 2011 but the Tories watered down the vote to the useless AV one, knowing it wouldn't get through. We need PR!
@@walker1054 The Labour Party can’t form a coalition government with the conservatives. They disagree on virtually everything. They would have to form a coalition government with either the SNP(god forbid) or the Liberal Democrat’s who would most likely want a retry when it comes to the alternative vote referendum. Just as you said that is how we get a proportional representation voting system .
AV is not useless, it's s much much better system than first past the post
@@sismail4689 AV can end up being even less proportional than FPTP.
@@arthurterrington8477 nope
@@sismail4689 Yep. If the 2015 UK general election had used AV, the result would have been less proportional than under FPTP. The Conservatives had a 36.9% vote share in that election: Under FPTP, the election gave them 50.9% of the seats. Under AV that would have been 51.8%
AV Plus goes some way to address this, but this is still regarded as "semi-proportional".
The Electoral Reform Society are also worth joining as they've been doing this for years. The more awareness the better.
Proportional Representation makes the most sense.
Who else has come back to watch this after Reform UK got 17% of the vote and yet only 5 seats in the 2024 general election?
algorythm brought it up after I used PR in a comment on Tommy's latest YT
Me too.
It's a weird thing to come up now since the UK already had a referendum on PR and the will of the people was to reject it.
Where was everybody when the Liberal Democrats where calling for this over the Last 30 years!! The Liberal Democrats even got everybody a referendum on the subject in 2011.
@@Jimdigby That referendum was on the AV voting system, not PR.
Nice one John 👍
I'm Canadian and you have no idea how disappointed I was when our current government broke their campaign promise to end FPTP elections in Canada :/
We keep trying but the political parties that benefit the most from FPTP are the ones making the laws so I'm not sure how hopeful I am.
Very good. Makes it entertaining.
It's MADNESS that we have to guess at the best tactical vote, by voting for our 2nd or 3rd choice, just to stop our 5th choice getting in. And we often guess wrong and get the exact opposite of what we intended. With trust in politicians at an all time low, it's time to restore some faith in democracy by Making Every Vote Matter, with PR.
1:38 - UPDATE: In 2024, Labour got 63% of the seats with 34% of the vote.
Here in Canada, we've had several unsuccessful attempts to implement PR on a provincial level, and many of us are disappointed that our current Prime Minister broke his promise to implement it on the national level after being elected in 2015. My home province alone has had 3 unsuccessful attempts to replace electing our provincial parliament with some form of PR to replace FPTP. The latest one (as of posting this) was a mail-in referendum last year, making it as easy as possible for the demographics less likely to want change to participate. As such, more than 60% of the votes counted were in favour of maintaining our current system. I can certainly tell you that few frequent voters my hometown wanted to keep the status quo, and the results did show that. But, we found out the hard way that there were too many more willing to participate, who didn't want the change to happen. Really disappointing.
A good explanation of the need to get a direct connection between voters and representation
FPTP is unfair, but in a Proportional System, MPs would lose the connection to their constituency.
The solution of the problem would be introducing the following electoral system:
1. All parties get their seats proportionally. e.g. if party X gets 10% of all votes for a parliament with 100 seats, it'll get 10 seats
2. The country is divided into constituencies. For party X, that gained 10 seats, the country is divided into 10 constituencies. Each constituency contains the same number of party X voters. For party Y, we take another map of the country. Party Y gained 2 seats, thus the country is divided into 2 constituencies, with the equal number of party Y voters living there.
3. In each constituency the respective party announces candidates that run for the seat. Then the voters elect their representative amongst these candidates.
Every area of the country would be covered with as many constituencies as parties that made it into the parliament. For example, party A is the biggest, so it gained the largest number of constituencies. In each of them the people can choose their party A-representative. Party B, that gained only one seat, will get a single nation-wide constituency, where people can choose the only party B-representative.
This system would be proportional and it would contain single member constituencies, so that regional interests can be represented. Furthermore, EVERY representative would be voted in a single member constituency, unlike the Mixed-Member-System.
You could say it's a corrupt system
Like and support awesome British actor John Cleese support P.R. voting system to elect the 650 British MP's in the 2019 British general election.
Great video. Why do people in this country put up with this unfair system in the UK? Join the Electoral Reform Society or write to your MP and find out who agrees with you. Either way, try to get rid of this undemocratic present system.
Do both those things - and also join us! www.makevotesmatter.org.uk/join-the-movement
I feel so jealous. In America this isn’t even a discussion. It like we’re destined to be stuck with plurality voting forever.
I think the MMP system is brilliant. Those with the support of voters behind them get a seat at the table.
Agreed. I think the systems we have in Australia are pretty good, but the NZ system might be even better. I'd like to see instant run-off for your local members, not first-past the post. Although the damage from FPTP is minimised because of the party vote, and it _is_ easier to understand for people who don'y pay much attention to elections.
Canada here
Works here in Australia
I agree with this. Most countries in Europe use proportional representation. The UK is the odd one out in this regard.
And France.
A petition to her Majesty the Queen signed by the majority of the British electorate would send a strong message that we would prefer a fairer voting system.
I suppose it's worth a try.
Really clear.
NZ went from first past the post to proportional representation after we went neo liberal without it being put to the country .
FPTP is crap indeed. PR is also problematic. It leads to dysfunctional coalitions. Look at Israel.
The AV referendum held a few years ago was won by the First-Past-the-Posters because the case for AV was so appallingly put together. It was truly dreadful and just succeeded in confusing everyone. Something like the Cleese approach would have been so much better.
So you are saying people didn't know what they were voting for? The will of the people was to keep FPTP.
AV as a system is not much better than FPTP, and even advocates of PR were not enthusiastic about it. It's not truly representational.
Alternative Vote is in no way similar to Proportional Representation.
No, I'm not saying that, @@dimitrisblane6368. I'm saying they voted to keep FPTP because, quite frankly, the campaign in favour of AV was so confusingly dire, that it almost persuaded ME that FPTP was better.
Can't argue with that @@Rufus535, although AV is a nod in the direction of more democracy. FPTP is really only appropriate where there are no more than TWO parties or TWO candidates.
The proportion of wasted votes under FPtP is on average 75%, under STV it would be about 15-20%.
That is a significant reduction.
0:52 in other words a democracy
In Australia we have preferential voting which is similar. Also voting is compulsory for Australian citizens, 18 years and above. I noticed that only about 60% of people voted in the election in UK. Obviously the other 40% don't care.
Bravo.
The UK had a chance to swap to a mixed-system called the Additional Member System. It combines the current system and proportional representation. Used in Scotland, there was a referendum to apply it nationwide in 2010. It failed. Only about 32% of citizens voted in favour.
The bit where it says '57% of us have to put up with a government we didn't vote for' - this would be true, perhaps higher, under PR.
With PR, how would you distribute the the seats? If a party got 25% of the vote and therefore 25% of the seats, who and how do you decide which seats?
MMP Proportional Representation works really well here in New Zealand. Half our MPs are local electorate MPs, half are list MPs to preserve the right proportion.
I'd reject any proposal for MMP, has the same spoiler effect as FPTP if there aren't enough list seats, Labour devolved scotland and wales with MMP (probably as a perverse way to keep labour in power in scotland and wales) but made the list seats 1/3 and people there have to vote tactically because of it. (not to mention dirty tactics like making a regional party and a "totally independent" list party).
Genius
765 out of 769 (99.48%) voters like this video, which is an overwhelming majority.
*I wish I could sign this petition but I'm a I wish I could sign this petition but I'm an Indian citizen & it still will take time for me to get British citizenship !!! So I guess I have to wait.*
1:59 also consider that, in 2015, the Conservatives won the majority of their districts with only a plurality of the vote share. Even the places the Tories won didn't generally support them.
Certainly Do need that system here in the U K , how can Reform get 4 Million votes and get 5 M Ps , yet Libdems get 3.5 Million & get 71 seats , & Labour get 30% of the votes and form a big majority in Parliament, we do need change before its to late , or is it already to late ? 😉
Reform should have Won .
I agree with you 💯% and have signed the petition 👍
You know it makes sense.
In the US, a Bill is introduced that would allow up to 5 House members to represent a single district and elected through single transferable vote. It's called the Fair Representation Act.
We need to give the one third of the people who voted for proportional voting their preferred voting method. I'd gladly take that system in the US, however.
Democracy is a marathon, not a sprint. The hostility, distrust and partisanship we see in Britain today is not indicative of a healthy democracy. Democracy is about finding common middle ground, recognising that nobody really has all the answers. Democracy is not winners and losers, that's just a form of tyranny.
TLDR: PR > FPTP
We would end up like America (divided on party lines) with PR and everyone being represented no party would be in charge like the Conservatives are now
@@fireiron369 We're already like America, that's the problem. We basically have a 2 party system and America isn't PR, it's predominantly FPTP. You say that nobody being in charge is a bad thing. I think it would promote cooperation and compromise between parties and people of different opinions rather than the situation we have now where one group of people manage to get a majority in parliament despite not representing the majority of people.
@@Carnophobe oh my dear delusional friend, I do not think Labour is making a come back.
I think we’re down to just a one party system now
This sounds great but why do we not use this?
Because it would make winning an election harder for Labour and the Conservatives. They don’t want this system because the current system allows them to be complacent, the only thing they have to worry about is each other when it comes to elections .
That being said there were labour MPs who supported the alternative vote back in 2011 but their party was split on it . This means that if the Labour Party were to be in a coalition government with the Lib Dem’s and the Lib Dem’s demanded an alternative vote referendum as part of the agreement then we could see an alternative vote actually being implemented in our country if the people voted for it.
In history class at school I learned that PR means that the government rarely has enough of a majority (there are too many differing views on everything with too much power), meaning that nothing ever gets achieved because there’s nobody in parliament powerful enough to veto a decision. I can’t say I agree or disagree but I’d like it if someone explained why this is correct or incorrect.
But how would PR work in terms of who your local MP is or would we get rid of local MP’s?
Here in Austria (a land with proportional representation), I am glad that we don't use FPTP for electing our representatives. I live in a region where the conservative People's Party of Austria won every election since WW2 and thus, I'd waste my vote if I don't vote the People's Party, because candidates of other parties wouldn't have any chance. That would make me very pissed off because I am center-left.
You are very lucky you don't hav FPTP, it is crap! Because of where I liv I hav NEVER elected a winning candidate in 40 years of voting.
I uses to think PR would be good but now I think it would lead to no decisions being able to be made, there are vested interests in not letting the people get what they want, common sense would never do. Somebody needs to ROCK THE BOAT.
Good video & explanation as I dont think most people understand what it means.How telling that the 3 countries with this system are almost the most wealthy .Trump wouldnt have won if they had PR. in germany they have a reasonable Green party representation because of PR.Problem is the 2 main parties which benefit from FPP arent likely to allow the change
US, the most wealthy?! Have you seen the size of their debt??
@Ulf ViKings www.truthinaccounting.org/about/our_national_debt?gclid=CjwKCAjw7-P1BRA2EiwAXoPWA0hrySI26g29tVT2-bMR9V58QkiRBhMtTMqeKCnBfhU7ga0ChlSVrBoCBI4QAvD_BwE
This is why I don’t like that the video compared PR, which is a system of representation, with FPTP, which is a system of voting. These are different facets. The President of the US by nature is a single seat, so PR couldn’t apply - you can’t elect a president who‘s 45% Democrat and 45% Republican. And when choosing who to assign seats to in PR, there are multiple methods of voting to choose from.
PR is the ethical voting system. Much more representative and fairer!
with PR reform would have undermined everything the majority government would try to do FPTP is needed when a country needs radical fixes
You forgot to mention john cleese as fiona's dad in shrek!
I say we increase the number of seats from 650 to 666. Then, there can be 222 constituencies, with 3 seats each
Then the number of seats will also represent the one who is behind the entire government.
I moved from Britain to NZ. We have PR here. It’s not perfect but it is definitely better than the Westminster model.
FPTP is a terrible system. Already signed up to this. The bit I don't get though is how many seats would we need in parliament? It would be good to have a more modern UK parliament that removes the oppositional pantomime. Also rules on filibustering should be introduced.
Subscribed and followed thanks.
North-East Somerset was a Labour constituency until 2010; it contains several industrial areas and there's every chance that a socialist could find their vote counting there with a big enough national swing.
I want proportional democracy in the states. It may not be the best system but it'll be better than what wr have now.
That still doesnt explain PR. So im still none the wiser.🤔
Look up the "Politics in the Animal Kingdom" series by CPG Grey.
Awesome. Excellent channel. Great video. P.R voting system is badly needed for Britain. The British House of Commons should elect all British 650 MP's under STV or P.R voting system like Ireland or Italy model for UK.
In Germany we have a system of both and Proportional Representation has the problem of people in the Parliament that completly depend on the lists of the partys and so have the most loyalty to the party, not the people.... all has pros and cons...
That isn't always true of all party list systems. Some like in Finland have open lists not closed lists. And Baden Wuerttemberg doesn't use lists, they use the best runner ups in the Wahlkries elections.
@The secular humanist To be more precise, Die Parteigezetz outlines important rules. Delegates, if parties use them, which they do, must be elected by secret ballot, and if those who vote for delegates are themselves delegates, they in turn are elected by secret ballot all the way down.
Lists are also compiled by the state level parties for federal elections not by the federal party, and this means that while a party like the CDU has about a thousand delegates at national Parteitage, the number of delegates involved in the state lists is a lot more.
And each constituency chooses a candidate, and the state party has basically no choice but to.include candidates nominated in each constituency in the list somewhere, and so the state delegates are more so thinking of the order in which the candidates are on the list and sometimes a few star candidates get nominated without being chosen by any constituency but they must be given such endorsement by the delegate vote.
The Parteigezetz also dictates that the party hold a Parteitag every two years at least, and they elect by secret ballot the members of their party board, including their chairperson who would be the candidate for chancellor if they get into the government. The Parteitage also approves of the electoral manifesto and of coalition agreements, the SPD has the additional step of requiring a member vote to ratify such agreements. This means that the party leader has to face a vote of confidence at least once every two years in practice, not something present in parties like either of the parties which have governed Canada.
I think parties should have "primaries" where voters can select which candidates they want to be on the top of their preferred party's list.
hello i read the past.
your teacher sent u this
PR is a great system, but if we’d had it in 2015 we’d have (and still have) a Conservative and UKIP coalition. So don’t just support it to believe that there would automatically be more left wing governments as that won’t always be the case.
I wonder if JC would stick by this comment after what just happened with Reform. I've seen him worm around a few political issues and this would probably be one of them.
It makes total sense to me! But TPTB won't let it happen as it doesn't work in their favour! Unfortunately.
Subject: Cherished World Champion voting system
I propose the following voting system as a much fairer alternative to our present one,
Its name refers to the hope that Britain should set a good example to the rest of the world in its democratic practice, to help shame the dictatorships and biased systems of the world into putting their people's needs first before their own pathetic and malevolent selfishness.
My late father's initials were C.W.C. Clarence Wilson Clough and he strongly believed in fairness.
At the next Election.......
Firstly a citizen's manifesto should be compiled as a result of unbiased questions suggested and approved by the public and parliament.This could be filled in on-line or even at the polling stations during elections (refreshments being greatfully provided to the willing participants for their voluntary effort!)
When it comes to voting the only change would be that the voting paper would have an empty box at the bottom in which the voter could put a number.
The number would refer to a name on display in the polling station,and perhaps as many as 50 candidates would be standing as national representatives with their numbers next to them,(a bit like dishes are printed out in a Chinese takeaway restaurant.)
These representatives would represent a constituency of opinion, and in picking one, the voter would automatically abstain from being able to vote for their local choice.
Every Vote Will Count!
When the votes are counted there will be four kinds of representation
One : The person with the most votes will be the local M.P.
Two : The unsuccessful local candidates will be able to vote on behalf of the voters who chose them in each debate in the House of Commons.(This would be via an internet connection to the speaker).They would enjoy this privilege no matter how few voted for them,they would not however be allowed to speak or act as an M.P.(unless perhaps the legitimate M.P.hired them as a locum, in the case of ill health e.t.c.)
Three: Any individual will be able to vote on their own behalf if they register with the speaker via the speakers office (as opposed to picking a representative.)
Four: The national representatives will be able to vote on behalf of everyone who voted for them and take part in the life of the House of Commons (just like the M.P.'s).
Finally,votes will be proportional with support i.e.(If 6 million people vote for a national candidate they would have a vote 100 times greater than a local M.P. who only got 60,000 votes.)
These votes would be individually recognised by a kind of credit card voting system on the floor of the commons.(A graphic display of the vote could also be exhibited to interest children and adults with learning difficulties.)
The speaker would vote for or against any motion according to the electronic poll her or his computer would register, (as a result of the contact of the unsuccessful local candidates) and individual (one vote voters).
I hope you are interested in my system, I would be very happy to discuss it with you or see it surpassed by a better or fairer idea
Yours Sincerely Elton S.P.Clough
But there was a referendum about changing the FPTP system, I think in 2010/11. Proposal was rejected by almost 73%, yet it was implemented using the proposed PR method, which is extremely peculiar if you think about it. You legitimize you voting system using the up to then sub-optimal and as such dismissed method.
As a boy i remember when i was doing history and we studied the weimar Republic and the ruse of the nazis and you know what really fucked the political systems in Germany and other countries like Italy.........proportional representation and continues to mess up there systems no matter what you have things will not be perfect acting like the grass will be greener on tbe other side has led humanity into some of its darkest times and even if we did switch people still would not be happy
Where is the petition to sign. I will do it NOW
It's time, that Westminster caught up with the world... Except the USA...
Where is the petition?
While I'm not suggesting that anyone should (or does) move to areas because of its politics, apart from a few extreme examples (Brighton, Bristol). The examples given here for why the local representative model doesn't work doesn't quite scan. If your party in your area didn't win, then why should that party's votes be lumped together with diffuse votes from across the party? No, a socialist in a tory area won't feel represented, because they're a socialist in a tory area.
As for the idea of encouraging lots of radically different parties all sharing more of the seats in parliament: how do expect parliament to vote? How do you make them all vote yes or no on policies? Or will it be yes, no and maybe. You then have to get analysts to work if it was a 'yes maybe' or a 'no maybe'. Or will it be like Europe, where smaller more radical parties are bullied into submission by the larger parties?
Those examples do scan. Under a proportional system a socialist in a conservative area or a right-winger in a left wing city would both have their votes matter, whereas, in the current system, they have no ability to democratically affect the outcome. That's the point, and there's really no getting around that.
Also, your argument that 'of course a socialist won't feel represented by a Tory MP, but they live in a Tory area' not only goes against the supposed virtue of FPTP, that MPs represent their constituents, but is also wrong on another level. In most recent general elections, a majority of seats are won by a candidate who received less than 50% of the vote, meaning 100% of that constituency's representation is going to a minority of voters, while the majority in the area get 0% local representation.
3 of the people displayed at 2:14 are no longer leaders of their respective parties, also a bit odd how you haven't mentioned that the devolved administrations use a form of PR
How is this actually going to work?
The alternative vote . Look up CPG Greys alternative vote video. For an explanation on how it works .
0 Tories have watched this yet :-)
AV SYSTEM *NOW!*
Wrong, its now one Tory, me, who has seen this and is 100% in agreement that we have to have PR.
@@sheffieldsteel _NOW_ maybe, but that's not 31-minutes ago when I posted ;-)
You don't have a clue, do you Matt? PR has nothing to do with who you vote for - notice the massive over-representation of the Labour win a few years ago - this is to do with fairness.
@@hyweltthomas *You don't have a clue, do you Matt?*
Yes, I do actually. Clearly you don't though.
*PR has nothing to do with who you vote for*
Well done *_BUT_* Tories know the UK is a left leaning country and with PR conservatives wouldn't stand a chance in elections, therefore they are AGAINST things like AV and PR.
*- notice the massive over-representation of the Labour win a few years ago - this is to do with fairness.*
WTF? :-/
@@Matt_Mosley1983 "Left leaning country" - what are you on about? Even with the stupid FPTP system Labour and Conservative have shared power for the past 17 years - the same before that. And, even with the recent Tory cockups, Labour made very little headway in the last election. In the 2011 referendum, Labour effectively abstained from voting for PR (Or AV as it was called) - perhaps if they felt strongly about it, they would have at least adopted some position.
Both the big parties want to keep the status quo.
Your logic doesn't make sense.
I know you from the old Compaq ads....
I really don’t get first past the post. It’s just minority rule and it’s a poor democratic electoral choice
Welcome to Trump's America!
You'll never get it
Nobody explains how the 650 constituencies get carved up using PR. I can’t find a video explaining it.
Depends on the system adopted. If we did it the way the Germans do it and had a constituency vote and a proportional list vote, we could have half as many constituencies that are double the size they are now, and the other half of seats in the commons would be elected to regional lists to ensure proportionality. Or you could go the most common route and simply have regions/constituencies that elect 10+ people each off a party list system. OR have slightly smaller constituencies with 3-6 MPs each and adopt ranked choice voting. However it ended up being done, it's certainly possible, and would result in much fairer outcomes for the majority of voters.
Hi Make Votes Matter! Can I use a clip of this for my upcoming film?
But muh districts !
(Even tho I vote on party ideas not to persons)
But let’s just say 51% of every constituency voted conservative, every elected official would be conservative, with 49% of votes going to other parties, so who would fill that 49% of seats ? The other parties yes but who would decide who sits in those seats and which of the winning conservatives would be excluded ?
Nothing on how PR would work.
It depends on which system of PR is chosen as to how it would work. Each system has it's own merits and works best in different situations.
@@20quid they shouldn't whinge about the current system without putting forward the alternative for us to scrutinise.
@@razvaz STV, MMP, Closed-list PR, Open-list PR. It would almost certainly be one of those four. Take your pick.
@@20quid I'm not picking, they are. If you want to change something so significantly like how we run our country, you say exactly what you're arguing for.
@@razvaz Ok, the ERS wants us to use STV.
Americans are approaching it from another angle, found at www.unrig.net/action-plan-phase-ii/ and think UNRig would work much better than bothering their head about PR. Concentrate upon what you are aiming to achieve, not on the means of doing so. UNrig is a destination, while PR is the means..
Unrig is about dealing with Gerrymandering, which means re-drawing electoral boundaries with the deliberate intention to create disproportional results in favour of one party, thereby fixing the election. Under PR, the results must be proportional, and therefore gerrymandering is impossible.
I think that proportional representation is a better voting method then first-past-the-post. However, you have to be careful of too many parties winning seats and leading to chaos.
I wouldn’t worry about that. A larger number of viewpoints should lead to more compromise, not chaos.
MMP now
Why's there one seat missing to left?
That's the seat of the Speaker
this wouldn't have happened under saddam.
ARE YOU COMING TO TOMMYS RALLY ON 27TH JULY TRAFALGAR SQUARE? THOUGHT TO BE 50,000 STRONG THIS TIME..GRANDMAS, KIDS, BLACKS, SIHKS, YOUNG OLD, PATRIOTS OF EVERY ETHNICITY GOING..JOIN THIS MOVEMENT JOHN, OR CAN YOU COVER IT ON YR CHANNEL AS MAINSTREAM MEDIA ARE CALLING IT FAR RIGHT AS USUAL X
My gran once said that politics isn't about cooperating with other parties and listening their views; it's about upsetting the least amount of people as possible. This was after I told her about how a minority voted for the conservatives and yet they recieved a majority of seats
I have just today been reading that countries voters are much happier when they have proportional representation but England, Australia and the United States persist with first past the post. JUST what are our Westminster, Australian and American governments so worried about that they are so against PR?
Hey Guys, can I use some of this for my upcoming short film? It advocates for changing our current political system to use proportional voting! Let me know please!
Is it not called Simple Majority and not FPTP? All electoral systems are first past the Post - it just depends where the post is. Using some PR systems the "post" is set by the Droop Quota.
Or Single Member Plurality
A lot of electoral systems are poorly named. FPTP might be better off known as WTA (winner takes all), because that is they way it works in each constituency. The winning candidate gets all of the representation, everyone else gets nothing.
In truth, we only have limited FPTP in the United States. It is only used for Presidential elections - which are obviously very important. The presidential election in the US is controlled by the electoral college, which allocates 100% of a state's electoral votes to whomever received the most votes in that state - regardless of whether they obtained a majority. But in congressional and gubernatorial elections, you still have to win an outright majority, either in an initial or runoff election. (I know, this is a video intended for British viewers, but this is an important point of clarification.)
Not true on two counts. The President is elected via the Electoral College, which I wouldn’t count as FPTP because the people don’t vote for the president directly. It‘s more like a two-tier system where each state selects their slate of electors by plurality, and then those electors decide the President by _majority_ - in other words if a candidate doesn’t get more than 50% of the electoral vote, then that vote doesn’t count and it’s instead decided by the House. For just about every other offices from the US Senate to your local school board, those are all single-seat elections that are decided by a plurality of votes, i.e. FPTP.