To hope for real electoral reform?

[Payattentioninclass]

The election results have highlighted how FPTP is undemocratic. It has always been the case, of course, but this latest elections makes it even more obvious. Whilst some will argue that it keeps dangerous fringe parties out of Westminster it stokes a feeling of unfairness and lack of voice. Some will argue that FTPS ensures stable govt - which a decade of Tory govt disproves - and that coalition govts don't work - but the evidence from other countries suggests otherwise.

So when will the UK grow up and adopt a real form of democracy?

Which would, of course, mean reform of the Lords too. Hereditary peers in the 21st century? Church of England bishops? Hundreds of former donors and cronys of past govts? Really, how can any of that be representative of a supposed mature democracy?

I think it will be less popular now precisely because of this.

P.S It should also be noted, which I haven't seen anywhere yet on these MN discussions is that PR was not the electoral reform up for grabs on the last referendum, it was AV – which also protects Westminster from fringe parties and protest votes. I think AV would likely be the favoured reform if any.

Why would the Tory or labour turkeys vote for Christmas which would see their power diminished.
The UK populace had their chance in the previous referendum but as with Brexit they proved themselves to be a rather dim bunch.

If we had STV, Corbyn would have won 2017

When Labour have just got two thirds of the seats in parliament with one third of the vote share? And Reform got 4 seats when they would have had closer to 100 under PR?

Not any time soon. And I say that as a supporter of electoral reform.

The problem is that the only people who can reform the voting system are the people who have been elected under the current one. It might be more of an achievable goal in a hung parliament.

With you, OP.
Everyone's vote should count equally, irrespective of where in the country you happen to live.

Whilst some will argue that it keeps dangerous fringe parties out of Westminster

I would argue that this is very very important, and should be a priority for any new PR, AV, other systems suggested

We had a referendum.

We voted no.

PR is not in Labours manifesto

So nope. Not going to happen

Neither Labour or Tories want to change the system. When we had a vote on it, the vast majority refused any change.

It won’t change.

We had a referendum very recently on electoral reform. It was rejected by a huge margin. The will of the people must be respected.
You cannot change the system just because a loud minority do not like the result of one election.
If Reform want more seats they need to persuade people to vote for them as the Greens and Lib Dems have been able to do.

It's conceivable that your view would be considered profoundly anti-democratic and dangerous too.

And who gets to choose what is dangerous and fringe ? In some countries women's rights would classified as such.

Except that this election may have made people open their eyes and realise how very unfair FPTP is, and result in the will of the majority changing.

I fear you may be right, so Labour may be setting themselves up for a fall in 5 years time whereas they could reform the system and anticipate majorities under PR for the centre-left, which usually together have well more %of the votrs than the right.

I agree it's time for change. The Hol is an anachronism and should be replaced with democratically elected candidates. We should have an elected Head of State as well.

I'd like it but it won't happen this decade or even longer.

These are the top priorities for the electorate: https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/49594-general-election-2024-what-are-the-most-important-issues-for-voters

Constitutional reform does not feature. Top five are: cost of living, health, economy, immigration, climate change.

If it wasn’t unfair when it was the LDs losing out, it isn’t unfair now just because it’s a shouty racist party instead.

Did you vote in the referendum, OP?

If it wasn’t important to you then, why is it now?

The thing is, you vote for your MP and not your government or the PM. People miss that point in our system. If you align the system we have, with the results of our system then it is fair because each constituency gets the MP they voted for.

Votes have been cast I this election within this system. Under a different system such as PR, the votes would have been different. I live in a very safe conservative constituency; next to another and work in another. All 3 have become Labour wins with small majorities because Reform took a chunk of the Conservative vote. Voters who couldn’t bring themselves to vote Labour voted in protest knowing that Reform were very unlikely to win. If there had been a system of PR this would likely have made voters in such seats more cautious.

Yes I voted for change in the referendum and yes, FPTP has always been unfair.

But you think that this election will change the will of the people, despite the fact that those same people either didn’t care, or didn’t agree with PR in 2011, when the same phenomenon was true, but it was other parties losing out.

Why is that?

I used to be very much in favour of proportional representation and did support the proposed AV system in that referendum, but now I have come to my senses. I'm now glad it was defeated.

I have realised that FPTP does help keep the number of fringe, far right and far left extremists getting into parliament to a minimum. Reform might have around 100 seats now if we had PR. No thanks.

The way we ( and who constitutes "we") vote for government has evolved ever since Parliament was established. It has never been set in stone.

FPTP is well due for relegating, in favour of PR.

Look at the German model, instituted after WW2, which meets all the objections to PR, and allows for regional differences to be reflected in policy making.

We have PR in this country. In what way has the Scottish Parliament proved so superior for the people of Scotland? It hasn't.

The evidence from other countries suggests that coalitions don't work very well. But we always have a coalition government in this country anyway. How come? FPTP 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.

But our current system doesn't allow for anything besides endlessly switching between Conservative and Labour.

I also think people would vote very differently if we had a PR system, so fears of a sizeable Reform contingent are probably overstated.