MrAnderson Posted July 5 #1 Share Posted July 5 (edited) https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/voting-systems/what-are-voting-systems/proportional-representation/ Quote Proportional representation is the idea that the seats in parliament should be in proportion to the votes cast. I couldn't believe it when I saw the results of the UK General Election that took place on July 4 2024 and asked myself something is wrong here. This system doesn't represent the will of the voters imo and it should change. The system is known as first past the post where the candidate with most votes in every constituency wins the seat. This leaves the second and third parties with nothing no matter how much they have of the share of the vote. In theory you may get 20% of the share of the vote (or even more) at a national level and get very few or zero seats!! To highlight how unfair the first past the post system is all you need to do is take a look at the results of this election. The Liberal Democrats have 12.2% of the share of the vote and 71 seats in the UK Parliament when at the same time the new party called Reform has 14.3% share of the vote and only 4 tests in the UK Parliament! Labour on 33.8% of the share of the vote and a massive 412 seats when at the same time the second party the Conservatives are on a 23.7 of the share of the votes and 121 seats. Likewise the Greens have 6.8% of the share of the votes and only 4 seats Something doesn't add up here. What are your thoughts? https://election.news.sky.com/elections/general-election-2024 Edited July 5 by MrAnderson 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L.A.T.1961 Posted July 5 #2 Share Posted July 5 Its not good for representing what the public voted for. But the big swings that can be caused does create an opportunity for losing parties to take a hard look at how they performed compared to what the public, who voted for them, wanted to see. The Labour party has changed their official party policy line from their last big defeat. With the outgoing government there was a big gap between what is expected of a right wing government and their actions. This might not have caused such a big change except for the emergence of the reform party who took a huge number of right wing voters away from Sunak. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itsnotoutthere Posted July 5 #3 Share Posted July 5 (edited) Labour: 34% of the vote. 64% of seats. Reform UK: 14% of the vote. 1% of seats. Edited July 5 by itsnotoutthere 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Essan Posted July 5 #4 Share Posted July 5 (edited) Before worrying about the voting system, we first have decide what the purpose of a general election is? is it: a) to elect a member of your community to represent your constituency in parliament? b) to decide which political gang ruins the country? c) to prevent a rival political gang from ruining the country? d) to vote for your favourite contestant from a TV game show to ruin the country. e) to vote for independence? f) to vote for Brexit? Are we a representative democracy or a particracy? IMO there should only be one correct answer ...... (and that means our voting system doesn't need changing since all constituencies elect just one representative) Edit: and in any case, surely the best voting system is the one that reduces the number of seats won by the Refascist party to a minimum? Edited July 5 by Essan 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrAnderson Posted July 5 Author #5 Share Posted July 5 26 minutes ago, Essan said: Before worrying about the voting system, we first have decide what the purpose of a general election is? is it: a) to elect a member of your community to represent your constituency in parliament? b) to decide which political gang ruins the country? c) to prevent a rival political gang from ruining the country? d) to vote for your favourite contestant from a TV game show to ruin the country. e) to vote for independence? f) to vote for Brexit? Are we a representative democracy or a particracy? IMO there should only be one correct answer ...... (and that means our voting system doesn't need changing since all constituencies elect just one representative) Edit: and in any case, surely the best voting system is the one that reduces the number of seats won by the Refascist party to a minimum? You haven't answered the question. Do you think the first past the post system is fair and representative? I think not. It's a very unfair system and not representative of the vote of people. Whether Reform is a fascist party it's another conversation. They have almost 4 million votes (14.3% of the vote share) and only 4 seats. The Greens have around 7% of the vote share and only 4 seats. Reform has the same number of seats with the Greens and double the amount of votes. The LibDems have less votes than Reform and a massive 71 seats. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Essan Posted July 5 #6 Share Posted July 5 1 hour ago, MrAnderson said: You haven't answered the question. Do you think the first past the post system is fair and representative? I think not. It's a very unfair system and not representative of the vote of people Yes, I think it's entirely fair. We have a choice of candidates and only one can become our representative in parliament. Whichever system we use the one with the most votes gets elected. I don't think political parties are fair or democratic, but that's their problem. We don't elect a political party. We don't elect a PM. We elect someone to represent us in parliament. One person. How is FPTP not fair? 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrAnderson Posted July 5 Author #7 Share Posted July 5 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Essan said: Yes, I think it's entirely fair. We have a choice of candidates and only one can become our representative in parliament. Whichever system we use the one with the most votes gets elected. I don't think political parties are fair or democratic, but that's their problem. We don't elect a political party. We don't elect a PM. We elect someone to represent us in parliament. One person. How is FPTP not fair? Why is it fair? Do you know the share of the votes of each party and their corresponding seats in parliament. How can this be fair? How a party gets 14% of the vote and 4 seats and the other party gets 13% of the vote and 71 seats? Do you consider this fair? Before answering remember what a cyclic arguments is. Edited July 5 by MrAnderson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Essan Posted July 5 #8 Share Posted July 5 5 minutes ago, MrAnderson said: Why is it fair? Do you know the share of the votes of each party and their corresponding seats in parliament. How can this be fair? How a party gets 14% of the vote and 4 seats and the other party gets 13% of the vote and 71 seats? Do you consider this fair? Before answering remember what a cyclic arguments is. But we don't elect a party. That's the point. I suppose a compromise would be to have 2 votes - one for your parliamentary representative and another for the party you want to form a government? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Essan Posted July 5 #9 Share Posted July 5 And don't forget, a lot of people did t vote Refore because they wanted them to form the government, they voted Reform as the best way to prevent the Tories from forming a government. The number of votes their candidates got is not representative of the number of people who wanted a Reform candidate to represent them. In Parliament. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrAnderson Posted July 5 Author #10 Share Posted July 5 1 minute ago, Essan said: But we don't elect a party. That's the point. I suppose a compromise would be to have 2 votes - one for your parliamentary representative and another for the party you want to form a government? Voters elect representatives. You can't have 14% of the vote and only 4 seats in parliament and the party with less votes and 13% of the vote share to have 71 seats. Its madness. Consider the scenario where a party gets 22% of the votes and a few seats another party gets 15% and a few seats, because the first party (whoever thet are) got most of the seats in the parliament (let's say 550)and as a result now there is no much opposition Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrAnderson Posted July 5 Author #11 Share Posted July 5 5 minutes ago, Essan said: And don't forget, a lot of people did t vote Refore because they wanted them to form the government, they voted Reform as the best way to prevent the Tories from forming a government. The number of votes their candidates got is not representative of the number of people who wanted a Reform candidate to represent them. In Parliament. I don't agree with this logic. Reform got 14% and they should have 14% of the seats in parliament. That is 0.14 × 650 = 91 seats Instead they got 4 The Greens had 7% of the vote share and only 4 seats. They should get around 45 seats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Essan Posted July 5 #12 Share Posted July 5 18 minutes ago, MrAnderson said: I don't agree with this logic. Reform got 14% and they should have 14% of the seats in parliament. That is 0.14 × 650 = 91 seats Instead they got 4 The Greens had 7% of the vote share and only 4 seats. They should get around 45 seats. But that's not how it works And as I say a lot of people vote tactically (which I oppose, but that's how it is). People do not even vote for the party they want to win, let alone the candidate! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Setton Posted July 5 #13 Share Posted July 5 Funny that those now whining about the first past the post model have been fine with it as long as it was benefiting them. As I said in the other thread, we had a referendum on proportional representation. The right wing especially lied through their teeth so people wouldn't vote for it. And now they have to suck it up. @MrAnderson @itsnotoutthere Unless you voted for AV when you had the chance, you're in no position to whinge about it now. You. Lost. Under the exact same mechanics you won the last several elections. Don't be a hypocrite. Take your defeat with a little grace. 4 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Wellington Posted July 5 #14 Share Posted July 5 (edited) How about all political parties (every party in the country) all have 1 vote in Parliament. How much weight it carries is based on how many people voted for the party. Edited July 5 by Duke Wellington Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrAnderson Posted July 5 Author #15 Share Posted July 5 1 hour ago, Setton said: Funny that those now whining about the first past the post model have been fine with it as long as it was benefiting them. As I said in the other thread, we had a referendum on proportional representation. The right wing especially lied through their teeth so people wouldn't vote for it. And now they have to suck it up. @MrAnderson @itsnotoutthere Unless you voted for AV when you had the chance, you're in no position to whinge about it now. You. Lost. Under the exact same mechanics you won the last several elections. Don't be a hypocrite. Take your defeat with a little grace. I am not from the UK but I follow whatever development in English speaking countries (mainly) and elsewhere. I made the thread because it sounds a very unfair system to me. You sound angry for some reason but it's ok cool down. First past the post doesn't seem right to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrAnderson Posted July 5 Author #16 Share Posted July 5 24 minutes ago, Duke Wellington said: How about all political parties (every party in the country) all have 1 vote in Parliament. How much weight it carries is based on how many people voted for the party. What about proportional representation? Imagine the scenario where a party like Labour performs well in first past the post system and gets not 34% of the vote share but 44% (!) There would be no opposition and labour will have over 500 seats in parliament. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Setton Posted July 5 #17 Share Posted July 5 41 minutes ago, MrAnderson said: I am not from the UK but I follow whatever development in English speaking countries (mainly) and elsewhere. I made the thread because it sounds a very unfair system to me. You sound angry for some reason but it's ok cool down. First past the post doesn't seem right to me. Not angry, more just disgusted with those hypocrites who were quite happy to lie to keep this system, happy with this system as long as benefited them then suddenly cry how unfair it is when they lose. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Setton Posted July 5 #18 Share Posted July 5 44 minutes ago, MrAnderson said: What about proportional representation? As I said, we had a referendum on that. The Tories lied through their teeth to keep the current system. Now they've lost, it's suddenly the most unfair system ever. It's just pathetic. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Setton Posted July 5 #19 Share Posted July 5 49 minutes ago, MrAnderson said: Imagine the scenario where a party like Labour performs well in first past the post system and gets not 34% of the vote share but 44% (!) They could still end up with fewer seats. Under the FPTP system, a party could (theoretically) get 49.9% of the vote and not a single seat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrAnderson Posted July 5 Author #20 Share Posted July 5 36 minutes ago, Setton said: They could still end up with fewer seats. Under the FPTP system, a party could (theoretically) get 49.9% of the vote and not a single seat. They could but what I said it's what if they have the success they had now but with a 44% of the vote share. You're right even with a 49.9% they may get very few or no seats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrAnderson Posted July 5 Author #21 Share Posted July 5 44 minutes ago, Setton said: Not angry, more just disgusted with those hypocrites who were quite happy to lie to keep this system, happy with this system as long as benefited them then suddenly cry how unfair it is when they lose. I hope it's not directed at me 😁 My observation is genuine and I am not a UK citizen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Setton Posted July 5 #22 Share Posted July 5 10 minutes ago, MrAnderson said: I hope it's not directed at me 😁 My observation is genuine and I am not a UK citizen. I did assume you were and happy to admit I was wrong. Half the right wingers on here have been whining about the unfairness of FPTP for the last week or so. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Setton Posted July 5 #23 Share Posted July 5 13 minutes ago, MrAnderson said: They could but what I said it's what if they have the success they had now but with a 44% of the vote share. You're right even with a 49.9% they may get very few or no seats. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make? If they had the same success as today with 44%, they'd have the same number of seats. Because that's the same success... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrAnderson Posted July 5 Author #24 Share Posted July 5 35 minutes ago, Setton said: I'm not sure what point you're trying to make? If they had the same success as today with 44%, they'd have the same number of seats. Because that's the same success... With a higher vote share I assume they gain more seats if they fptp in more constituencies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrAnderson Posted July 5 Author #25 Share Posted July 5 39 minutes ago, Setton said: I did assume you were and happy to admit I was wrong. Half the right wingers on here have been whining about the unfairness of FPTP for the last week or so. If you're right wing and you're whining selectively just before the election then I see your point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now