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

[Theemeperorsnewclothes]

The rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer. It’s always been this way. The Tories have really f upped because the middle classes are feeling the pinch of their disgraceful profiteering from covid. Labour won’t be much better as they are still too far right to make it right. Linda on the council estate is not your enemy. The big corporations who are using the Russian/Ukraine war are. Until a government steps in and actually advocates for the individual we are all f…ed. There is no political knight in shining armour coming to rescue us anytime soon. We need to change the political system in the UK. We need better representation, who actually stand a chance of winning.

I think a major part of the problem is voter apathy. If young people voted more they woukd get more representation. If we didn't have people who were almost proud to not vote ' because there all the same' as if that is a profound statement they have made after reading all the manifestos we would have far more representation. We may also have a variety of MP's from different parties, more Green MP's ( even though I dislike what they have become) People need to see voting as a civic duty.

I voted yesto reform in the 2011 referendum, not necessarily because I really liked the proposed system but to keep the debate open. My constituency was one of four in the whole country that voted in favour. 🫠

Vote for one of the parties that are proposing a move to proportional representation. The change in our democratic process is more important than any party’s policies when they’ll likely only be in power for 5 years anyway. FPTP DOES NOT WORK

I suspect if the Tories do as badly as predicted we'll be getting PR soon.

'The rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer. It’s always been this way.'

It has not always been this way. We have had periods in very recent history were the wealth gap has closed rather than widened.

I actually think we need global cooperation on some of this. Its not right we have CEOs in space while their workers, creating all their wealth are in receipt of tax payer hand outs because they can't afford to feed their children. We need a global wealth tax so billionaires can't just move money to escape it.
Never going to happen though, countries seem locked into a race to the bottom and the only winners are the super rich.

There’s a couple of points coming to mind.
Surely a PR type system requires mandatory voting?
Otherwise the representation part isn’t wholly accurate.

FPTP has clarity, both at the constituency level and at the government level.

Agreed. Fist past the post is not the ideal system. Here in Scotland we have a form of proportional representation. Trust me the idea is good but the last 13 years have seen a one party state and recently a minority government propped up by the Green patty. This has lead to a concentration of laws which are unpopular, hard to enforce and challenged by all. It is likely to see a great reduction on the SNP presence at Westminster and probably a similar effect at the next Holyrood election.

Pr should and can dilute the gargantuan power if the big parties. The problem is a presumption that the wee parties will add some sense to the mixture. The example of the Greens in Scotland suggest otherwise.

PR would have us veering very sharply to the far right.
That's not something that I want.

We have PR in Scotland and it's delivers exactly the same thing.

The SNP have been in government since 2007 without a majority a voters supporting them.

They've committed crimes, destroyed the NHS, moved Scotland to the bottom of every league table. Yet PR props them up every single time.

And

I the UK we already had a referendum on PR and the country voted No.

I'd vote to ditch PR in Scotland and return to FPTP

What actually constitutes "the rich". And exactly how are big corporations, most of which are not based in the UK, using Putins' invasion of the Ukraine against the people of this country ?.

Interestingly, when we had the chance in a referendum to vote for a more proportional (admittedly not perfect) system, nobody cared and nobody voted for it.

There are some exceptions but there is a dearth of talent in the people who go into politics. I work with some very educated, brilliant, professionals and not one of them would touch politics with a bargepole. Not worth the hassle, and the death threats, and the work/life balance (or lack of one). The genuinely sensible politicians are sidelined by lightweight populists; the tone of political debate rarely gets beyond name-calling and shit-stiring because hey, if someone disagrees with you, they must be scum or evil, mustn’t they?

We ultimately get the politicians we deserve. The spoiled ballot paper crew and those not voting because there’s no-one who exactly fits their views, need to reflect. Vote for the least worst option, no-one gives a shit that you wrote “none of the above” on the ballot. Literally no-one. Have an actual say in who gets elected, even if they aren’t the dream ticket.

First past the post is deeply flawed but PR is also deeply flawed in other ways. So is every other alternative. Perfect and fkawless political systems do not exist.

Minority parties campaign for PR because PR gives them disproportionate power when the support for the two main parties is evenly balanced. If Red have 295 seats and Blue have 300 or 290 seats then an obscure party with 6 members of parliament can wield enormous power.

Closed list PR means that party croneys can be sure of keeping their seats even if the public hates them, and mavericks who are regularly balancing on the line between staying in the party and making a difference vs being booted out for disobedience can be demoted down the list and lose their seat even if the people like them.

There are many other models of government whivh all have their flaws but it would be foolish to make major changes while the level of education and engagement with politics among the general population is so low. Much better to pushfor more efforts to increase political education and engagement first because with current levels any major change would be siezed on by a canny operator who spots an opportunity to exploit the inherent flaws in whatever new system gets adopted.

First past the Post is undemocratic and always has been. Very often more people vote against the winning candidate then for. That cannot be right.

Wouldn’t this make it more likely parties like Reform would get seats?

If that’s who a proportion of the population want to represent them then that’s what they should get. It’s democratic. Just because you don’t like a party doesn’t mean they shouldn’t represent those that do.

Now we’re in the ridiculous situation where the government represent the choice of a minority of voters. Most voters voted for someone other than the current government. It’s absolutely absurd.

(Edit: ps I’m not a Reform supporter!)

The problem with the 2011 referendum was that it asked the wrong question and offered an alternative voting system that not even those that wanted an alternative liked. The question should have been far more open-ended - Are you satisfied with the current FPTP system? - and a No vote taken as the basis for a Royal Commission to investigate the options and present alternatives.

I'm strongly in favour of electoral reform and proportional representation. It would be an earthquake under UK politics though. I very much doubt either the Conservative or Labour parties could survive intact. Their built-in coalitions and factions would splinter. Both the UK electorate and UK politicians would have to deal with coalition governments based on communication, cooperation and compromise. Which would not be a bad thing given the usual bad temper, bickering, and childish antics the current FPTP arrangement encourages.

The system proposed in 2011 was a massive compromise. But PR systems all seem to fall into one of two categories - simple but awkward, or, complex but practical. My preferred choice is the German system which is simple but awkward. Simple in that you cast two votes, one for your constituency representative (so the local MP is always represents the constituency majority), and a second vote for the national party (which could be the same or different to your choice of MP). The complex bit is the maths to make this work and the number of MPs in parliament is not fixed.

I agree. I’d sooner leave things as they are.

I think it was Billy Bragg (of all people) who I think came up with a good solution.
Keep fptp (or winner take all as I prefer to call it) in the HoC. Use PR in the HoL. After each election, count all the votes and let parties appoint people to the HoL in proportion to what % of the votes they got. This could then be balanced across both houses so if the Greens (for example) got 20% of the votes, they would have 20% of the seats combined in both houses. So even if they only got one seat in the HoC (or none) over both houses, they would still have 20% of the seats. This would obviously mean clearing out the HoL each election as well.

I'm not one who can claim to understand politics greatly. Can one someone explain what first past the post means in simple terms please?

Winner take all is a better description.
You have one seat (constituency) five candidates. Four candidates get 19% of the votes each, one candidate gets 24% of the votes. That candidate wins 100% of the seat as only one MP is sent to parliament. Multiply this across the country you have a government with 100% of the power that only 24% of people voted for.

You don't want PR or some different system, you want a government that benefits you, just like everyone else.

The Scottish Parliament is elected using PR. So please tell us in what ways the Scottish Parliament has provided all the advantages you cite. It hasn't.

By the way, we always have a coalition government in this country - always. How come? 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, not whatever gets cobbled together afterwards which may include extremists and deplorables to make up the numbers - a tiny minority then exerts influence disproportionate to their share of the vote.

The same thing happens under FPTP, but the disproportionate influence is instead wielded by mainstream politicians, not by extremists.

But that's not the real problem. Here's the real issue: Why do we vote? Partly to appoint governments. But also, much more importantly, to dismiss governments. And that's the problem with PR.

Under FPTP, relatively small changes in voter patterns lead to significant changes in the outcome. It's much easier to kick politicians out of office. Whereas, under PR you get several main parties each of whom can reliably count on 15-40% of the vote and you get decades of political deadlock. For the senior 'List' politicians it's a job for life. That's not democracy - it's actually patronage. They owe nothing to the voters because they can't be removed by the voters. It's why the extremists are taking over in Europe, because people are frustrated with more-of-the-same and no way to change it.

We need better politicians, not tinkering with a system that does it's job well - it makes politicians vulnerable at election time.

Surely a PR type system requires mandatory voting?

No. Mandatory voting is not required under PR. Why would it be? Voting or not voting is no more significant under PR or FPTP.

No way, the thought of extreme left& right parties and religious ones getting seats, makes my hair curl. How can you expect anything to get done, when there all coming out with some crackpot ideas and not agreeing on anything unless their policies are agreed too.

There's usually a threshold. For example, in Germany a party needs 5% of the national vote to qualify for representation under the second Party vote. An extreme party not meeting this would only get into a representative into parliament if they won a local constituency seat with a local majority in that constituency. The threshold ensures you don't get a long tail of extreme minority parties. The exception is when the extreme goes mainstream, such as is currently happening with the AfD. The burden of responsibility generally tempers the extremes when that happens - it's easy to have extreme policies when you're a minority with no responsibilities, much harder when they might crash the economy. Extremist parties generally get shut-out of coalitions.

@Kendodd thank you for explaining. Please don't think I'm stupid. How does it work, as in how do they get such a strict percentage of votes...?

I wonder if you live in the country I live in that has Proportional Representation @Towerofsong ?

Here are the results of the UK 2015 election, with the percentage of votes. The party with the biggest percentage of votes wins. The Conservatives won with 36.9% of voters voting for them.
That means most voters didn’t vote for them. 63% didn’t want the conservatives to win.

CON 36.9%
LAB 30.4%
UKIP 12.6%
LD 7.9%
SNP 4.7%
GRN 3.8%

First past the post

Country divided into areas

Each area can have one politician

They are elected based on the votes in that area

Sounds fair but is sensitive to where boundaries are so you get weird effects ( and boundaries are always being tweaked "for fairness") ( although the tweaks always seem to be in the interest of the party making them )

It is possible for a party to get a larger share of the overall vote and not have a majority

Whats happens in practise is a party get a relatively low share of the overall vote and have complete dominance in the parliament - you can form a government with less than half the country voting for you. 2017 43% Tory, 41% labour yet labour had no say in the policies that formed.

People who like this system say it leads to strong government as one party get to rule. They despise a "hung" parliament where no one party dominates

Others say our system leads to a weak government who get their own way unchallenged, don't need to work with people or different opinions to find a better solution that works for all - it's a macho dominanat way of running things

Many seats have so many of one voter that they are "safe" seats - if you don't support that party you may as well not vote

Alternatives involve proportional representation- in it simplest form if reform get 8% of the votes they get 8% of the seats - with their candidates ranked according to how many votes they got . That means everyone's vote matters

Although the uk establishment hates the idea it does work well in other countries and scotland has a form and germany