I strongly believe we need a new political system in the UK.

The UK has achieved more carbon reduction than any other European state, without having a single green candidate. There is a lot of negative things you can say about our current politicians but the green agenda has actually been very successful.

@GasPanic "PR just makes for ineffective government if you ask me. Most of the European governments seem to spend their time in paralysis because of the constant requirement to trade of policy to gain parliamentary support rather than actually implementing policy that changes things."

As someone who has lived for many years in three different European countries I can confidently say that this is not the case - unless you have some facts to back up your opinion.

"I think the Greens efforts to raise the profile of environmental issues are laudable and they have caused both Labour and the Tories to shift their policy on this towards a more green agenda."

"Fringe parties have their effect on UK politics, the way they do this is by forcing the main parties to adapt their policies to secure votes."

There are countries in Europe that actualy have ministers from the Green party and where the governments have been forced to consider environmental issues.

The main parties in the UK have only adopted and adapted the policies of some fringe parties out of fear of losing votes - most notably the Conservatives' policies on immigration - but also because of entryism. None of the major English parties has incorporated much of the Green agenda into their manifesto (the Conservatives are actively opposed to almost everything "green") and even where these parties do make promises in order to gain votes, these promises are soon forgotten once the party has been elected.

Dodgy coalitions aren't a a given under PR. Remember for all their faults, the LibDems published a formal coalition agreement with the Tories in 2010. This removed a lot of the back room dealing and gave some clarity and transparency..

Do we all agree on one point - that if you don’t bother to vote you are saying ‘I don’t care who wins’

Well I agree.

However I would (and just have 😀) suggest the way to counter this is not to resort to mandatory voting, but just to require a winner to get more than 50% of the available votes.

You can bet your life that if Reform or the Communist party actually had to work to court 50% of the electorate, you'd get much more moderate and accessibly policies.

PR just makes for ineffective government if you ask me. Most of the European governments seem to spend their time in paralysis because of the constant requirement to trade of policy to gain parliamentary support rather than actually implementing policy that changes things.

Even with an 80 seat majority, the Conservatives have been paralyzed by internal divisions under FPTP.

PR requires cooperation and compromise, which means that effective government generally involves a lot less extremes of policy. Problems with some EU governments at the moment are through general weakness of leadership rather than something inherent in their PR systems.

FPTP has not encouraged political mainstreaming in the UK. It usually gives one party an absolute majority when their overall support may be a marginal majority or even a marginal minority.

The current government was elected with the votes of less than 30% of the electorate, and only 43% of those who actually voted and yet had a Parliamentary majority of 80 seats. The vast majority of the electorate were effective disenfranchised while the "elected dictatorship" set to work destroying public services and making everyone (except their donors and chums) poorer than they were 14 years ago.

Do we all agree on one point - that if you don’t bother to vote you are saying ‘I don’t care who wins’

So if you don’t have mandatory voting then you still end up with upset because even with PR you could be the second largest vote but be outgunned by the third, fourth and fifth placed parties who form a ( voting ) coalition.

I can’t remember the exact statistic, but it was roughly that in 50 years of forms of PR in Italy, there’d been 32 governments.

PR just makes for ineffective government if you ask me. Most of the European governments seem to spend their time in paralysis because of the constant requirement to trade of policy to gain parliamentary support rather than actually implementing policy that changes things.

Fringe parties have their effect on UK politics, the way they do this is by forcing the main parties to adapt their policies to secure votes.

I think the Greens efforts to raise the profile of environmental issues are laudable and they have caused both Labour and the Tories to shift their policy on this towards a more green agenda. I'm not sure that the Greens are the sort of people I would want making policy issues on a lot of other things though because they have little experience and a lot of their ideas on non Green issues are crazy IMO and don't really stand up to scrutiny. In fact most of the small parties struggle to put together meaningful manifestos. I prefer them where they are. Outside parliament yet still impacting policy.

The advantage of the FPTP system is that highly marginal extreme views that go against the majority of popular opinion will very rarely get enough votes to win a single constituency, and the mainstream parties have a strong incentive to seek a middle ground that appeals to the average of mainstram opinion rather than the extremes.

I think you've got that the wrong way round.

FPTP has not encouraged political mainstreaming in the UK. It usually gives one party an absolute majority when their overall support may be a marginal majority or even a marginal minority.

Reading this full thread and the post above is the exact reason the " fringe" parties are doing so well here and across Europe and the US.
Most are talking like a dictatorship in that you want to alter the voting system to exclude certain members of society even if that group may be a large percentage and getting larger ( Le Penn )

Orban in Hungary is now talking about a pact with Eastern block nations as the EU will not listen to them.

You can end up with the exact problem you set out to try to fix

Of course democracy gives votes (and possibly seats) to parties that some people might define as "extreme" and whose policies are contrary to "the majority of popular opinion." Anything other than this is not really democratic.

But here there are two obvious problems.

What one person defines as "extreme" might seem to be perfectly acceptable and desirable to someone else. Certain mainstream politicians have been quick to define climate protesters as "extremists." The current government has passed legislation that bans protests, attempts to remove the right of assembly and gives the police powers to act against anyone or any organisation that the goverment disapproves of - which is about as "extreme" as you can get in a so-called democracy.

"The majority of popular opinion" is likewise not something that is easily defined. The current government defends its policies as being "the will of the people" based on their mandate achieved with the votes of only 29% of the electorate, while opinion polls (and quite likely the upcoming election) show that they do not have the support of the vast majority of the electorate. There comes a point at which a government ceases to have legitimacy - my personal opinion is that the Conservative government is sailing very close to this point (hence their urgency to limit human rights and make protests illegal) - but for the sake of clarity, the issue would be equally valid regardless of which party was claiming legitmacy based on the votes of a very small minority of the electorate while ignoring the views (and votes) of the vast majority.

PR does not work on the basis of elimination - you're describing a transferable vote system which in many ways is even worse than FPTP for the reasons that you explain.

Why don't we have real FPTP ?

You want to win. you need more than 50% of the entire electorate. (Not just the people who vote). If you can't get that then you can either play PR with second and third choices or just not have an MP at all. After all, if half the electorate don't want a single candidate, then go without.

If people act like children (and when it comes to politics it seems we aren't past the toddler stage) then we should be treated as such.

I can have other ideas if you pay me more 😀

Yes, but a fringe party with a handful of seats should never be a problem.

You never watched Borgen then? What about May's deal with the Ulster Unionists?

That's the point of the "let that sink in"

The problem with democracy is that you also have to give the vote to racists and extremists.

There are more people voting for extremist right wing parties than for the Green party because mainstream parties do have reasonably credible and balanced environmentally conscious policies so you can consider yourself Green without voting Green. But the mainstream parties can never get right-wing enough for those extremists.

The advantage of the FPTP system is that highly marginal extreme views that go against the majority of popular opinion will very rarely get enough votes to win a single constituency, and the mainstream parties have a strong incentive to seek a middle ground that appeals to the average of mainstram opinion rather than the extremes.

Under PR if 5% of the population are racist bastards then yoir legislative body has 5% racist bastard members. Under FPTP so long as those 5% are evenly distributed among all constituencies they will never get a seat.

Of course more people will vote against someone than for them. That will be true in any system where more than 2 candidates are allowed to stand. Even in a gradual-elimination setup where earlier rounds narrow down the field to two candidates for a head-to-head run-off, both final candidates will have more people that preferred someone else than they have actual first-choice supporters.

How are UKIP and the Green Party comparable? One has hateful agenda, the other is working towards ideals that are inclusive and attempting some moral good outcomes I.e saving our environment!

that would represent the people’s wishes, as many have said we are now in a situation where one party has overall control but voted by only 30-40% of the electorate

"I am in favour introducing some form of PR. However it will solve much on its own. We also need a reformed second chamber."

One of the features of a parliament elected using PR is that there is no need for a second chamber. Where second chambers exist (the majority of countries do not have them) they were originally created to accommodate the "problem" of the landed gentry, clergy and other economically powerful groups who threatened to undermine the government, or they were created to mitigate against the sort of "elected dictatorship" that can result from FPTP.

I'd deal with a lot of the expenses/second home issues with a couple of fixes:

1. Make the constituency offices permanent with a civil service office manager. There's no need to have new MPs set up their own office when there's a change of party. Much of the constituency office work is admin rather than political. This would maintain continuity over changes of MP and during election periods. It would also keep campaigning separate from constituency office duties.
2. Provide accommodation (one bedroom flat with an office) for all MPs as part of the parliamentary estate.

I am in favour introducing some form of PR. However it will solve much on its own. We also need a reformed second chamber. We need to look at how politicians are remunerated - to ensure they are sufficiently rewarded and sorting out the expenses issues (which is still a huge mess) and prevent them from taking the piss regarding second homes.

also, the whole way that parliament operates needs to be reexamined - from the hours they work to the physical infrastructure. Currently most things remain archaic.

perhaps a Royal Commission?

First Past The Post encourages broad-church parties which are effectively coalitions. The strength of our system is that you get to see the form of the coalition before you vote.

I direct my learned friend to the state of the Conservative party over the last 16 years to indicate that this is not the case. Their factions and divisions over Europe lead to a disastrous referendum, and the increase failure if party cohesion has lead to an equally disastrous succession of short-term and ineffectual party leaders/prime ministers.

Your comment assumes that under PR people would vote the same way as they do under FPTP. There are other important factors that could affect the parliamentary make-up should FPTP be replaced by something else such as PR.

Firstly, some voters vote tactically. They don't particularly like Party A, but under FPTP they vote for them rather than for Party B in order to keep B out. Given the choice under PR, these voters might now vote for C, D or E if they felt that their votes would now result in their preferred party being represented. They would have the opportunity to vote for a party, rather than against a party. (In the last GE, barely 50% of those who voted actually voted for one of the two major English parties).

Secondly, almost one-third of the registered electorate does not actually vote. There may be several reasons for this; for example, in a "safe" seat a voter might not bother to vote for any of the other parties because there is no chance of their vote having any influence on the outcome; in a constituency with a two-party split, the voter who supports neither party might likewise abstain, being unwilling to be seen to endorse either candidate; or simply, even where there are several candidates a voter might not vote because their preferred choice is still "none of the above."

Thirdly, it is estimated that around 5 million people who are eligible to vote are not actually registered to do so. Adding these to the electoral roll would add over 10% to the registered electorate. Similar to the abstainers above, there are various reasons why this might be the case, but PR would perhaps encourage more people to register and vote by dispelling the doubts of those who feel that "my vote doesn't count anyway" or "politicians are all the same"

George Galloway has managed to get a seat under FPTP, but not (since his expulsion from Labour) with a party that would get close to 5% so under PR he'd still be a lone voice. The BNP under Nick Griffin didn't break through 2% of the national vote, so would be excluded by a 5% minimum threshold.

Brexit is the perfect example of why FPTP is such a bad idea. A Yes/No vote could not reflect the broad range of views of the electorate. Before the vote it was all soft, hard, Norwegian option, etc. Afterwards a slender 52:48 majority was not interpreted as inconclusive but rather taken as a mandate for an extreme hard Brexit and all talk of soft/compromise options or attempting to renegotiate the UK-EU relationship whilst remaining in the EU was discarded

But an even bigger percentage didn't want each of the other Parties to win - the Tories still Win whichever way you look at it!

Not the Mike Drop that you think it is. 🙄