Should the UK Adopt a Proportional Representation System?

[Setton]

15 minutes ago, MrAnderson said:

With a higher vote share I assume they gain more seats if they fptp in more constituencies.

That's the thing though. A higher vote share doesn't mean more seats under this system. That's why I'm saying, you could get 49.9% and zero seats.

It's not about vote share under our system, it's about where those votes are.

Case in point, Labour actually got slightly fewer votes this election than in 2017 but have nearly 200 more seats.

You've said you're not from the UK, can I ask where you are from? I'm wondering if there's a parallel that might make sense of it for you.

[Setton]

17 minutes ago, MrAnderson said:

If you're right wing and you're whining selectively just before the election then I see your point.

Take a look at @itsnotoutthere and @Duke Wellington - perfect examples of people who were very happy with FPTP last election now suddenly it's an insult to democracy 😄

[MrAnderson]

Just now, Setton said:

That's the thing though. A higher vote share doesn't mean more seats under this system. That's why I'm saying, you could get 49.9% and zero seats.

It's not about vote share under our system, it's about where those votes are.

Case in point, Labour actually got slightly fewer votes this election than in 2017 but have nearly 200 more seats.

You've said you're not from the UK, can I ask where you are from? I'm wondering if there's a parallel that might make sense of it for you.

I understand what you're saying. I am from the US. What I meant is you can get a higher vote share AND more seats when you win more constituencies. There is a higher probability when the second/third parties win few of the constituencies.

[Duke Wellington]

37 minutes ago, MrAnderson said:

I understand what you're saying. I am from the US. What I meant is you can get a higher vote share AND more seats when you win more constituencies. There is a higher probability when the second/third parties win few of the constituencies.

The amount of people voting labour was in the low 30s percentage.

In fact, that`s less than Commie Corbyn got, a lot less. Our system is weird, you could technically get 49.9% of the vote and not win a single seat. Although unlikely, it is possible. We have over 600 seats, the one with the most votes for each gets it, no one else gets a look in.

Starmer is less popular than Corbyn, Labour will go delusional and claim they have a massive mandate from the British people for re-joining the EU, heavy socialism, and large numbers of immigrants. It`ll be a one term government, assuming the Tories, Reform, or both together, sort themselves out.

[MrAnderson]

7 minutes ago, Duke Wellington said:

The amount of people voting labour was in the low 30s percentage.

In fact, that`s less than Commie Corbyn got, a lot less. Our system is weird, you could technically get 49.9% of the vote and not win a single seat. Although unlikely, it is possible. We have over 600 seats, the one with the most votes for each gets it, no one else gets a look in.

Starmer is less popular than Corbyn, Labour will go delusional and claim they have a massive mandate from the British people for re-joining the EU, heavy socialism, and large numbers of immigrants. It`ll be a one term government, assuming the Tories, Reform, or both together, sort themselves out.

I get you're a conservative voter and want the conservatives to govern. Do you think the fptp system is fair?

I can't say it is.

[Duke Wellington]

17 minutes ago, MrAnderson said:

I get you're a conservative voter and want the conservatives to govern. Do you think the fptp system is fair?

I can't say it is.

I`m like the UK version of a Republican. I`m more right than a lot of Tories as I would privatise the NHS and even schools. I would even scrap the minimum wage.

With FPTP sometimes you win, sometimes you loose. But a weakness of it as we have seen is a party taking a third of the vote but having two thirds of the seats. Its not a mandate from the people for their policies, their voter share is rather pathetic.

Essentially our system makes a hung Parliament less likely, but gives unpopular governments large majorities. 

[L.A.T.1961]

I cannot see Labour using their huge majority and introducing a FPTP system although they liked the idea previously.

They will have the same response to their win as the Conservatives did when they had won a good majority and not look a gift horse in the mouth.

At best there might be an enquiry set up to fact find and investigate the public mood.

Kicking the issue into the long grass.😉 

Labour will only take the moral high ground when it suits. 

[MrAnderson]

4 minutes ago, Duke Wellington said:

I`m like the UK version of a Republican. I`m more right than a lot of Tories as I would privatise the NHS and even schools. I would even scrap the minimum wage.

With FPTP sometimes you win, sometimes you loose. But a weakness of it as we have seen is a party taking a third of the vote but having two thirds of the seats. Its not a mandate from the people for their policies, their voter share is rather pathetic.

Essentially our system makes a hung Parliament less likely, but gives unpopular governments large majorities. 

I will caution you on the idea NHS becoming private or the schools. Same for the minimum wage. I think you've got it right in the UK and Europe.

[Duke Wellington]

1 hour ago, MrAnderson said:

I will caution you on the idea NHS becoming private or the schools. Same for the minimum wage. I think you've got it right in the UK and Europe.

Communist detected, alert, alert!

[A rather obscure Bassoon]

Too be honest ,first past the post avoids the shambles of party’s trying to form a government and as already stated on this topic first past the post is always unfair if your party loses.

 

 

 

[MrAnderson]

6 minutes ago, Duke Wellington said:

Communist detected, alert, alert!

 

I am not a communist

 

[MrAnderson]

6 minutes ago, A rather obscure Bassoon said:

Too be honest ,first past the post avoids the shambles of party’s trying to form a government and as already stated on this topic first past the post is always unfair if your party loses.

 

 

 

It's unfair and no doubt about it. The strong part of this unfair system is it doesn't usually lead to parties with no majority trying to find partners in governing the country.

[A rather obscure Bassoon]

7 minutes ago, MrAnderson said:

It's unfair and no doubt about it. The strong part of this unfair system is it doesn't usually lead to parties with no majority trying to find partners in governing the country.

The thought of a labour government terrifies me but I have to accept the result of a fair and democratic election.

[pellinore]

10 hours ago, Essan said:

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!   

There was a lot of tactical voting in this GE. I voted LibDem knowing they would never form a govt. It was just the best chance of getting the Tory MP out. A lot of us in Dorset and the SW did the same, which is why we now have a patchwork of LibDem/Labour.

It's better to take a chance on a Party who might improve the state of the UK, rather than allowing in office a Party who have demonstrated they definitely won't. The electorate have been gagging for this chance to get rid of the Tories who have become increasing unhinged as they try to out-Right the lunatics leading Populism in the UK.

Edited July 6 by pellinore

[pellinore]

2 hours ago, A rather obscure Bassoon said:

The thought of a labour government terrifies me but I have to accept the result of a fair and democratic election.

You should be terrified by the march of Populism and the Right. Just look at Europe and the US to see the damage they can do.

[pellinore]

2 hours ago, MrAnderson said:

It's unfair and no doubt about it. The strong part of this unfair system is it doesn't usually lead to parties with no majority trying to find partners in governing the country.

PR has its drawbacks too- the most obvious being the likelihood of hung parliaments and having no clear majority.

[Setton]

8 hours ago, MrAnderson said:

I understand what you're saying. I am from the US. What I meant is you can get a higher vote share AND more seats when you win more constituencies. There is a higher probability when the second/third parties win few of the constituencies.

Well, yeah. Constituencies are seats so, yes, if you win more seats, you win more constituencies. Because they're the same thing.

It's not really any different to your system in the US. Each state elects two senators, yes? Democratic senators could get millions more votes, but if those votes are all in California, that won't translate to seats.

[Setton]

2 hours ago, pellinore said:

PR has its drawbacks too- the most obvious being the likelihood of hung parliaments and having no clear majority.

Personally, I don't see that as a drawback. I think our country would be a lot stronger with a bit more compromise.

And unlike our resident hypocrites, that's a position I've maintained, win or lose, since I was old enough to vote.

[Ozymandias]

3 hours ago, Setton said:

Personally, I don't see that as a drawback. I think our country would be a lot stronger with a bit more compromise.

And unlike our resident hypocrites, that's a position I've maintained, win or lose, since I was old enough to vote.

The Republic of Ireland operates a Proportional Representation (PR) system and has had nothing but successful coalition governments since 1989. It is not a problem. The electorate is better represented by the elected members of parliament and the parties making up the coalition have always managed to thrash out a workable programme for government between them. The evidence is that PR and coalition government are good for a country. Under FPTP, rival parties tend to undo the work/progress made by the previous government when they get into power. Under coalitions, because the programme of government is an agreed compromise, the progress made tends to endure.  

[Duke Wellington]

2 hours ago, Ozymandias said:

The Republic of Ireland operates a Proportional Representation (PR) system and has had nothing but successful coalition governments since 1989. It is not a problem. The electorate is better represented by the elected members of parliament and the parties making up the coalition have always managed to thrash out a workable programme for government between them. The evidence is that PR and coalition government are good for a country. Under FPTP, rival parties tend to undo the work/progress made by the previous government when they get into power. Under coalitions, because the programme of government is an agreed compromise, the progress made tends to endure.  

Sure it works, they`ll sign you up to the EU, ignore the no vote result and bring it it via the backdoor, and then subject you to loads of immigration.

That`s democracy!

[Ozymandias]

1 hour ago, Duke Wellington said:

Sure it works, they`ll sign you up to the EU, ignore the no vote result and bring it it via the backdoor, and then subject you to loads of immigration.

That`s democracy!

Coalition governments never signed the Irish up to the EU. The Irish people - who are sovereign - signed themselves up. Nothing was ever brought in by the backdoor. The Irish people, having reconsidered the matter following a more informed debate and being granted concessions, chose to accept the implications of the Lisbon Treaty. The turnout for the second referendum was greater by 20% and there was a major swing to the YES vote, the treaty being ratified by a majority of 2 to 1.

The British people. on the other hand, who are not sovereign, were never consulted about any European treaty and when they were asked in 2016, made a very poor choice of going with Brexit, thus indicating how badly informed they were on European matters. In recent years with the benefit of hindsight and the experience of reality the majority of the UK electorate appear to have regretted that decision, but they were either too lazy to vote in 2016 or the majority of those that did vote were unable to comprehend the complexities of the issue and choose wisely. Some still fail to comprehend which is no surprise really given their comments on here.

Immigration in Ireland is a problem that all western countries are having to deal with at the moment. Ireland will sort its problem out in due course. It's a complicated issue with no simple solution. 

Excuse the digression. To get back on course, I think the UK should introduce proportional representation (PR) if it seriously wants to sort out its problems. British governments must bring their population along with them in a genuine 'we're all in this together and together we will get out of it' spirit. Not everyone will get on board but PR is the best way to ensure buy-in by a greater majority of the electorate. Also, if rival parties in a coalition agree on a compromise programme for government their progress is more likely to endure and not be reversed by later governments. 

Edited July 6 by Ozymandias

[Duke Wellington]

2 hours ago, Ozymandias said:

Coalition governments never signed the Irish up to the EU. The Irish people - who are sovereign - signed themselves up. Nothing was ever brought in by the backdoor. The Irish people, having reconsidered the matter following a more informed debate and being granted concessions, chose to accept the implications of the Lisbon Treaty. The turnout for the second referendum was greater by 20% and there was a major swing to the YES vote, the treaty being ratified by a majority of 2 to 1.

The British people. on the other hand, who are not sovereign, were never consulted about any European treaty and when they were asked in 2016, made a very poor choice of going with Brexit, thus indicating how badly informed they were on European matters. In recent years with the benefit of hindsight and the experience of reality the majority of the UK electorate appear to have regretted that decision, but they were either too lazy to vote in 2016 or the majority of those that did vote were unable to comprehend the complexities of the issue and choose wisely. Some still fail to comprehend which is no surprise really given their comments on here.

Immigration in Ireland is a problem that all western countries are having to deal with at the moment. Ireland will sort its problem out in due course. It's a complicated issue with no simple solution. 

Excuse the digression. To get back on course, I think the UK should introduce proportional representation (PR) if it seriously wants to sort out its problems. British governments must bring their population along with them in a genuine 'we're all in this together and together we will get out of it' spirit. Not everyone will get on board but PR is the best way to ensure buy-in by a greater majority of the electorate. Also, if rival parties in a coalition agree on a compromise programme for government their progress is more likely to endure and not be reversed by later governments. 

Tell that to your rioters in Dublin following the latest vast shipment of immigrants.

[A rather obscure Bassoon]

13 hours ago, pellinore said:

You should be terrified by the march of Populism and the Right. Just look at Europe and the US to see the damage they can do.

Better to take your Country back than kowtow to the Globalists, Trudeau’s Liberal government here is on it’s last legs and we will have a Conservative government.

[Setton]

Just now, A rather obscure Bassoon said:

Better to take your Country back 

We just did. Conservatives were absolutely obliterated.

[Ozymandias]

2 hours ago, Duke Wellington said:

Tell that to your rioters in Dublin following the latest vast shipment of immigrants.

You continue to hijack this thread to indulge your obvious prejudices. The Dublin rioters were not genuine activists against immigration, but mainly opportunists intent on looting and criminal damage. They were interested in attacking the police and other social services and indulged themselves in burning police cars and other publicly owned vehicles. Their primary purpose was robbery and they looted many Dublin shops. Most were identified and their activities tracked using CCTV and they have been rightly charged and sentenced.

In a civilised democracy rioting is not the way to protest against immigration. Most Irish people have issues with the level of immigration to the Republic, not with immigrants per se. Fortunately, most immigrants contribute positively to Irish society and are welcomed here, although some engage in criminal activity which has caused many to question the vetting procedure and Ireland's immigration system. Scumbags rioting contributes nothing to the resolution of the problem. The sensible people of Ireland will sort it all out in good time and the scumbags get what they deserve.   

Edited July 6 by Ozymandias