@@euphra5674 that is not true and it is unfair also. It simply gives the minority parties (such as UKIP, Brexit Party, Green Party etc) their fair share of seats in parliament... it probably won’t give them a majority unless they team up with other (larger) parties.
@@jaysimpson6857 Sometimes you just need a clear, basic understanding of the key points to get the juices flowing. It's easy to search up evidence for your arguments once you know what points you're gonna make
London has a population of 8.9 million and rising fast, home counties(counties just outside London) also have a population of approximately 5.7 million on top of this....Now compare this to the population of Wales, North Ireland and Scotland which together has approximately the population of 8.5 million with lower growth and are far larger area than the aforementioned ... now you can see where the highest concentration of the electorate are in the UK of GB and NI.... if we have full untethered proportional representation, the largest parties will target south England and make policy making in these areas central to their strategy...... this may cause countries such as Wales, North Ireland and Scotland losing leverage on policy that also benefits them..... FPTP does have a Iot of flaws though, as i'm in favour of a Mixed-Member Proportional Representation that we see in Germany's Bundestag as this would allow parties with smaller shares of the population vote to gain more seats elsewhere, the issue Caroline Lucas raises towards the end.(apologies for not sourcing some of these stats but they're mainly from google).
I think probably the best way to improve the current system is to keep it as it is for the House of Commons, but make the House of Lords elected NOT based on constituency or local/regional representation, but based on political views alone. So all the Lords lay out their political views and it gets published by the government and Lords are categorised nicely so you can read through them and watch their videos clips at home in order to make a choice based on who is closest aligned to your viewpoint This way even if your House of Commons vote always gets discounted for your local constituency because you're voting for an unpopular party in your local area, at least on a national level you still count and the Lord who you voted for is more empowered by your vote and thus gets a greater number of individual votes in the House of Lords. The House of Lords, being the upper chamber takes priority in case of a deadlock and the House of Commons can only delay legislation for say, a year. As for the prime minister, he can come from either house, so long as he commands enough support in the house. Usually this would be a prime minister from the House of Lords because it's the upper chamber and a majority of political viewpoint representation is democratically more legitimate than minority rule from the House of Commons (as it is today). There would be a vote of confidence at the start of the first parliamentary session to establish his position as PM in the House of Lords, so that he knows he'll be able to rule effectively even if he is surrounded by a bunch of Lords who are just independents and not party-aligned to him. So... the majority leader in the House of Lords will be PM, rather than the majority leader in the House of Commons. However if the Lord with the most support does not have enough support to command a majority in the House of Lords because of the problem with proportional representation, but he WOULD have enough support because of first past the post in the lower house, then he can just be a prime minister in the lower house again and freely switch to that house (or indeed switch the other way around). So he can easily replace the majority leader in the other house if the party agrees. In the case of a House of Commons prime minister, the House of Lords will have a responsibility to act as a vehicle to support the government and not to hinder it. So the ability to block legislation for only a year then goes back to the House of Lords (as it is today), and after this time the prime minister can simply push through the legislation even without agreement from the House of Lords. That way they don't hinder government rule for too long I think this system is an improvement because it builds on the system that is already established by making it more democratic, and does not try to revolutionise everything by simply throwing out the existing system altogether as if it were worthless (which it isn't), or as if other countries have better systems for the UK to copy (which they don't). Other countries have their own problems with their systems and these should not be important to the UK because the political mindsets of politicians is completely different. Systems were coalitions are the norm simply don't work for the UK and should therefore not be attempted.
this is why the US system is beautiful, you can vote 1 way locally and another nationally in the potus election, elections for DAs too is beautiful no more bs cps
i still dont understand fully. So in this instance, the conservative have the majority of seats, however in a constituency could have a labour leader in charge?
“In charge”? No, multi member constituencies are just used for electing MPs. It’s not a local government, only the MPs are supposed to represent their constituents. The system is used in the majority of parliamentary democracies.
I think one of them is that areas with less voters will get less of a say, for example Scotland will get less pull than London. Another would be that it is difficult to overturn a government, for example the 1997 election could never happen.
You are rigth. The argument the first past the post is more effective than proportinal representation is stupid. If you want effective leadership, you may choose one party rule (dictatorship) without any elections at all. I'd rather choose instable, but democratic goverment with the need of forming coalitions, rather than stable, but without the option to change it.
That is not true. The 2011 referendum was on changing the system to Alternative Vote, which is not Proportional Represenataion in any way, shape or form. It is merely a slightly less bad version of the current system.
Oversimplified one sided presentation. Not a balanced argument for the MANY other downsides to proportional voting system; large cities tyrannising rural areas, congestive tribal voting that further divides classes and ages, encouraging national leaders to either abandon low or high populated areas (depending on the demographics of the time) as well as many other downsides. When the UK held a referendum on this very ISSUE of whether we should keep FPTP or opt for the proportional vote, the UK voted overwhelmingly to keep FPTP not because of historical tradition, but because proportional voting is a more dangerous and divisive alternative that does not encourage community involvement or unity with those around us but relies on the fractured and ever changing momentum of mob rule.
Coby Benzoir in the 2011 AV referendum, the electorate chose against it as Alternative Vote is neither proportional nor representative. It is even worse than FPTP. In the 6 counties we have PR-STV for council, assembly and European elections and it is manages to work in one of the most toxic, politically polarised regions in the world. It has not resulted in a rural-urban split. In fact, it has made parties who would under FPTP not put any effort/funding into an election in a seat they would have no choice of winning (for example DUP in Foyle or SF in North Antrim) fight to try and get a seat. So they don’t abandon their voters in certain areas and abolished the idea of “safe seats”. PR-STV has not divided people by class/age. In fact, it has depolarised our politics. In places like Fermanagh-South Tyrone, in FPTP elections, most Nationalists candidates usually drop out to support one Nationalist, and most unionist candidates drop out to support a Unionist. The most notable example of this happened in 1981, with the election of PIRA Hunger Striker, Bobby Sands. It was one of the hardest fought and most toxic campaigns in history, and was seen as a sectarian headcount. Under PR-STV, this would never have happened as the spoiler effect doesn’t polarise the community. PR-STV has also allowed center ground parties, such as Alliance, who would never have gained traction under FPTP to become major players in NI politics. You assume (like many do after years under FPTP) that everyone in a certain area votes the same way. Not everyone in a rural area of the Home Counties votes Conservative, and not everyone in a mining village in the North votes Labour. PR-STV would cause parties to not abandon them, as they fight for their vote in historically safe seats. I would go on but I feel I’ve made my point
Proportional Representation doesn’t work. Remember the behind the scenes wrangling between the Lib Dems and the Tories before they agreed to form a coalition government? Well, it’s worse with PR. It may appear “fair” on the surface but it leads to impotent government and dirty (behind the scenes) politics... And when you think about it, the FPTP system resolves into a PR style coalition when there is no overall majority. Let’s keep the Status Quo until someone comes-up with a better idea.
LADONNA The Drag Queen New Zealand Do you live in New Zealand? I’m curious because of your use of the word “their”... and anyway, we are all entitled to our opinion...
Who here would introduce Proportional Representation to the UK?
In a heartbeat. 👍🏻
Yep 👍 it’s fairer.
definitely would, let minorities become the majority!
@@euphra5674 that is not true and it is unfair also. It simply gives the minority parties (such as UKIP, Brexit Party, Green Party etc) their fair share of seats in parliament... it probably won’t give them a majority unless they team up with other (larger) parties.
@@tobeytransport2802 i suppose but in my view I think its much fairer than first past the post
Thank you for this. I was really struggling to write an essay for my Politics course and this video literally took me from sobbing to speed-typing.
Good luck with your essay! Let us know if there's anything else you want the team to cover on our #AdeAsks series 💪
You’re basing an essay on information in this 2 minute video?
@@jaysimpson6857 I did indeed. I am a confident bullshitter. Got 90%
@@UtterQueerNightmare You’ll go far as a politician in that case then.
@@jaysimpson6857 Sometimes you just need a clear, basic understanding of the key points to get the juices flowing. It's easy to search up evidence for your arguments once you know what points you're gonna make
London has a population of 8.9 million and rising fast, home counties(counties just outside London) also have a population of approximately 5.7 million on top of this....Now compare this to the population of Wales, North Ireland and Scotland which together has approximately the population of 8.5 million with lower growth and are far larger area than the aforementioned ... now you can see where the highest concentration of the electorate are in the UK of GB and NI.... if we have full untethered proportional representation, the largest parties will target south England and make policy making in these areas central to their strategy...... this may cause countries such as Wales, North Ireland and Scotland losing leverage on policy that also benefits them..... FPTP does have a Iot of flaws though, as i'm in favour of a Mixed-Member Proportional Representation that we see in Germany's Bundestag as this would allow parties with smaller shares of the population vote to gain more seats elsewhere, the issue Caroline Lucas raises towards the end.(apologies for not sourcing some of these stats but they're mainly from google).
I think probably the best way to improve the current system is to keep it as it is for the House of Commons, but make the House of Lords elected NOT based on constituency or local/regional representation, but based on political views alone. So all the Lords lay out their political views and it gets published by the government and Lords are categorised nicely so you can read through them and watch their videos clips at home in order to make a choice based on who is closest aligned to your viewpoint
This way even if your House of Commons vote always gets discounted for your local constituency because you're voting for an unpopular party in your local area, at least on a national level you still count and the Lord who you voted for is more empowered by your vote and thus gets a greater number of individual votes in the House of Lords. The House of Lords, being the upper chamber takes priority in case of a deadlock and the House of Commons can only delay legislation for say, a year.
As for the prime minister, he can come from either house, so long as he commands enough support in the house. Usually this would be a prime minister from the House of Lords because it's the upper chamber and a majority of political viewpoint representation is democratically more legitimate than minority rule from the House of Commons (as it is today). There would be a vote of confidence at the start of the first parliamentary session to establish his position as PM in the House of Lords, so that he knows he'll be able to rule effectively even if he is surrounded by a bunch of Lords who are just independents and not party-aligned to him.
So... the majority leader in the House of Lords will be PM, rather than the majority leader in the House of Commons. However if the Lord with the most support does not have enough support to command a majority in the House of Lords because of the problem with proportional representation, but he WOULD have enough support because of first past the post in the lower house, then he can just be a prime minister in the lower house again and freely switch to that house (or indeed switch the other way around). So he can easily replace the majority leader in the other house if the party agrees.
In the case of a House of Commons prime minister, the House of Lords will have a responsibility to act as a vehicle to support the government and not to hinder it. So the ability to block legislation for only a year then goes back to the House of Lords (as it is today), and after this time the prime minister can simply push through the legislation even without agreement from the House of Lords. That way they don't hinder government rule for too long
I think this system is an improvement because it builds on the system that is already established by making it more democratic, and does not try to revolutionise everything by simply throwing out the existing system altogether as if it were worthless (which it isn't), or as if other countries have better systems for the UK to copy (which they don't). Other countries have their own problems with their systems and these should not be important to the UK because the political mindsets of politicians is completely different. Systems were coalitions are the norm simply don't work for the UK and should therefore not be attempted.
this is why the US system is beautiful, you can vote 1 way locally and another nationally in the potus election, elections for DAs too is beautiful no more bs cps
I heard you can vote if you're dead as well.
🤣🤣
@@marhier yh lots of fraud too ngl
This is such a helpful vid! I love your vids!
Thanks Madina! Be sure to send us a vid via Instagram if there's a topic you think we should be discussing.
Thank you ..really good presentation......
A french style two round system could be a compromise while we decide which system to pick? It is a half way House really.
wow! quick yet informative, keep the good work
This whole thing is unfair and stinks. How do we change to PR?
i still dont understand fully. So in this instance, the conservative have the majority of seats, however in a constituency could have a labour leader in charge?
Yeah! And good luck to that labour MP on effecting any real change when control is in the opposition's hands. 🤷🏽♀️
“In charge”? No, multi member constituencies are just used for electing MPs. It’s not a local government, only the MPs are supposed to represent their constituents. The system is used in the majority of parliamentary democracies.
thank you so much was struggling with my essay :)
Hold on…. What about the negatives of a proportional representation system?
I think one of them is that areas with less voters will get less of a say, for example Scotland will get less pull than London. Another would be that it is difficult to overturn a government, for example the 1997 election could never happen.
You deal with with hybridisation called mixed member proportionality
ayo Ahnaf whos next?
You are rigth. The argument the first past the post is more effective than proportinal representation is stupid. If you want effective leadership, you may choose one party rule (dictatorship) without any elections at all. I'd rather choose instable, but democratic goverment with the need of forming coalitions, rather than stable, but without the option to change it.
NZ now takes this system for granted.
The UK _had_ a referendum on this a few years ago, hardly anyone voted on it, so nothing changed.
We had our chance.
That is not true. The 2011 referendum was on changing the system to Alternative Vote, which is not Proportional Represenataion in any way, shape or form. It is merely a slightly less bad version of the current system.
Get rid of it
That was so confusing...
The party that wins the most constituencies wins the election, if it's under 326 constituencies they partner up with another party
Oversimplified one sided presentation. Not a balanced argument for the MANY other downsides to proportional voting system; large cities tyrannising rural areas, congestive tribal voting that further divides classes and ages, encouraging national leaders to either abandon low or high populated areas (depending on the demographics of the time) as well as many other downsides. When the UK held a referendum on this very ISSUE of whether we should keep FPTP or opt for the proportional vote, the UK voted overwhelmingly to keep FPTP not because of historical tradition, but because proportional voting is a more dangerous and divisive alternative that does not encourage community involvement or unity with those around us but relies on the fractured and ever changing momentum of mob rule.
Coby Benzoir in the 2011 AV referendum, the electorate chose against it as Alternative Vote is neither proportional nor representative. It is even worse than FPTP.
In the 6 counties we have PR-STV for council, assembly and European elections and it is manages to work in one of the most toxic, politically polarised regions in the world.
It has not resulted in a rural-urban split. In fact, it has made parties who would under FPTP not put any effort/funding into an election in a seat they would have no choice of winning (for example DUP in Foyle or SF in North Antrim) fight to try and get a seat. So they don’t abandon their voters in certain areas and abolished the idea of “safe seats”.
PR-STV has not divided people by class/age. In fact, it has depolarised our politics. In places like Fermanagh-South Tyrone, in FPTP elections, most Nationalists candidates usually drop out to support one Nationalist, and most unionist candidates drop out to support a Unionist. The most notable example of this happened in 1981, with the election of PIRA Hunger Striker, Bobby Sands. It was one of the hardest fought and most toxic campaigns in history, and was seen as a sectarian headcount. Under PR-STV, this would never have happened as the spoiler effect doesn’t polarise the community. PR-STV has also allowed center ground parties, such as Alliance, who would never have gained traction under FPTP to become major players in NI politics.
You assume (like many do after years under FPTP) that everyone in a certain area votes the same way. Not everyone in a rural area of the Home Counties votes Conservative, and not everyone in a mining village in the North votes Labour.
PR-STV would cause parties to not abandon them, as they fight for their vote in historically safe seats.
I would go on but I feel I’ve made my point
The UK has never had a vote on PR.
Proportional Representation doesn’t work. Remember the behind the scenes wrangling between the Lib Dems and the Tories before they agreed to form a coalition government? Well, it’s worse with PR. It may appear “fair” on the surface but it leads to impotent government and dirty (behind the scenes) politics... And when you think about it, the FPTP system resolves into a PR style coalition when there is no overall majority. Let’s keep the Status Quo until someone comes-up with a better idea.
Absolute bollocks, New Zealand have PR and there government is absolutely fine.
LADONNA The Drag Queen New Zealand Do you live in New Zealand? I’m curious because of your use of the word “their”... and anyway, we are all entitled to our opinion...
@@AndyJMacLeod We are indeed all entitled to our opinions, and it is my opinion that your opinion is stupid. Good day.
LADONNA The Drag Queen Based on what I know about you so far, I’d be more worried if you agreed with me...
@@AndyJMacLeod And what do you know?