Is First Past the Post past it's prime?

[Halb]

I watched this video on STV yesterday;
Extra: STV Election Walkthrough
https://youtu.be/Ac9070OIMUg

Is it a better voting method for the HOuse of COmmons, than current FPTP?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_...

[rdjohn]

It’s probably like democracy itself.

The least worst option.

A benevolent dictatorship, like Singapore, seems to produce good results.

[SpielBoy]

rdjohn said:

It’s probably like democracy itself.

The least worst option.

A benevolent dictatorship, like Singapore, seems to produce good results.

What is one persons Benevolent dictator is another's despot.

FPTP disenfranchises people - both Green, UKIP and to a lesser extent The Lib Dems have been under represented ( or not at all ) despite getting a significant %age of the popular Vote.

You have also had issues where the SNP have got around 50% of the votes in Scotland - yet won 95% of the seats.

But perhaps more Importantly both Labour and Conservatives have won majorities in Parliament with around 37% of the popular vote.

I really don't think that the votes of 37% of the populace should trump the 63% who had another opinion.

I have trouble seeing how anyone can disagree with that last point and still think it is OK in a democracy.

Edited by SpielBoy on Monday 9th September 09:07

[Lindun]

There was a referendum on this in 2011 and it was rejected. Are you suggesting we should re-run it because you don’t like the result?

[V10leptoquark]

I'm assuming the 'first past the post' suitability question is arising because at the next general election it will likely deliver a large majority to the party standing on a leave manifesto? (With the 'remain' vote being split between the left wing parties)

However, I think the FPTP system is a good method that 'usually' delivers a single party government majority, which is good in giving the UK a 'direction' (for at least 5 years - usually). A strong government can introduce policy and the country can move along so to speak.

A coalition government, a weak majority or even a lame duck government has to either compromise on every issue or is simply unable to do anything constructive - as we have been witness to over the past number of years. All this is not good for businesses and the economy in general.

So I'm an advocate for the FPTP system, it generally has had a positive effect - I wouldn't like to see a system that favours the delivery of endless coalition governments as what often happens in Europe.

[Halb]

SpielBoy said:

What is one persons Benevolent dictator is another's despot.
FPTP disenfranchises people - both Green, UKIP and to a lesser extent The Lib Dems have been under represented ( or not at all ) despite getting a significant %age of the popular Vote.
You have also had issues where the SNP have got around 50% of the votes in Scotland - yet won 95% of the seats.
But perhaps more Importantly both Labour and Conservatives have won majorities in Parliament with around 37% of the popular vote.
I really don't think that the votes of 37% of the populace should trump the 63% who had another opinion.
I have trouble seeing how anyone can disagree with that last point and still think it is OK in a democracy.

Edited by SpielBoy on Monday 9th September 09:07

Nice points made without projection. Good to see that reading skills haven't completely disappeared from PH!
The more I look at the UK system, the ore is seems a bit like MOnty Python. I suppose if the upheavals in the current system keep going, it might encourage a look at how it can be improved. Without any of the constitutional seismic changes that would upset a lot.

[rover 623gsi]

FPTP is st. It means that nearly all constituencies are represented by someone that more than half the voters don’t want and gives power to a party that more than half the voters don’t want.

[eldar]

rover 623gsi said:

FPTP is st. It means that nearly all constituencies are represented by someone that more than half the voters don’t want and gives power to a party that more than half the voters don’t want.

It’s what the people want. They voted for it in 2011. Yay.

[Jazzy Jag]

Lindun said:

There was a referendum on this in 2011 and it was rejected. Are you suggesting we should re-run it because you don’t like the result?

But people didn't know what type of PR they were voting for.
Many who voted against have since changed their minds.

Blah, blah, blah...

[wc98]

it isn't a great system, but when i look around the world i don't see anything that sticks out as being better.

[Gribs]

Lindun said:

There was a referendum on this in 2011 and it was rejected. Are you suggesting we should re-run it because you don’t like the result?

It was slightly better than the current system (so I voted for it) but not really close to proper proportional representation. The vote also suffered from massive voter apathy and very little promotion, and being held alongside local council elections.

[bristolracer]

The Italians have PR
They have had 65 governments since WW2

We have had 13

[PositronicRay]

Gribs said:

Lindun said:

There was a referendum on this in 2011 and it was rejected. Are you suggesting we should re-run it because you don’t like the result?

It was slightly better than the current system (so I voted for it) but not really close to proper proportional representation. The vote also suffered from massive voter apathy and very little promotion, and being held alongside local council elections.

I don't remember the 2011 refendum at all.

I'd like to see some proportional representation. Without parliament interferering things seem to go better.
.

[aeropilot]

bristolracer said:

The Italians have PR
They have had 65 governments since WW2

We have had 13

They changed sides in WW2..!!!!!!

Don't think Italy should be cited as a typical example of PR at work

[rover 623gsi]

wc98 said:

it isn't a great system, but when i look around the world i don't see anything that sticks out as being better.

If it’s so great why doesn’t everyone use it?

[John145]

Go through previous elections and see what governments you would likely have had with PR. Notably there’d be more Con/UKIP governments than you’d like...

[turbobloke]

To find out, we need..........................................................................................................................................................................................another referendum.

Clearly the last one was wrong, it got the wrong result, another is needed, until the right result pops out.

Those not in agreement must be aged or uneducated or both. Obvious really.

[Terminator X]

There was a Ref about first past the post not that long ago. I didn't even realize there was one at the time (disgrace given something so important) as I'd certainly have voted against it.

"5 May 2011: UK – referendum on whether to change the voting system for electing MPs to the House of Commons from first past the post to the alternative vote (no, first past the post will continue to be used to elect MPs to the House of Commons)"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13297573

TX.

[Sporky]

Gribs said:

It was slightly better than the current system (so I voted for it) but not really close to proper proportional representation. The vote also suffered from massive voter apathy and very little promotion, and being held alongside local council elections.

As I recall it was a bit of a stitch-up by the Tories to make the Lib Dems look silly (not that they needed a lot of help at the time). The referendum didn't offer the system that the Lib Dems were actually asking for, and was "promoted" to pretty much ensure it'd fail.

I'd like something more PR and less FPTP/constituency based, and I didn't think that referendum offered much in the way of progress. My suspicion is that many other people who'd like to see electoral reform weren't greatly enthused by the proposal either.

[jakesmith]

SpielBoy said:

rdjohn said:

It’s probably like democracy itself.

The least worst option.

A benevolent dictatorship, like Singapore, seems to produce good results.

What is one persons Benevolent dictator is another's despot.

FPTP disenfranchises people - both Green, UKIP and to a lesser extent The Lib Dems have been under represented ( or not at all ) despite getting a significant %age of the popular Vote.

You have also had issues where the SNP have got around 50% of the votes in Scotland - yet won 95% of the seats.

But perhaps more Importantly both Labour and Conservatives have won majorities in Parliament with around 37% of the popular vote.

I really don't think that the votes of 37% of the populace should trump the 63% who had another opinion.

I have trouble seeing how anyone can disagree with that last point and still think it is OK in a democracy.

Edited by SpielBoy on Monday 9th September 09:07

I see it very differently to you
I prefer a stagnant mediocrity of 2 entrenched parties, to a dynamic nightmare of coalitions, changing allegiances, and extremists like UKIP and the Greens being anything to do with the governing of the country