Do you know how votes translate to Seats?

[Woj]

Labour got nearly twice as many Seats as they did Votes (by percentage).

That's not right, surely?!?!?!

It will become increasing unsustainable for a government to have absolute power (which the system insists on) when they are the minority when ranged against the people who did not vote for them. That way civil war lies.

But it's been like this for centuries, and I haven't noticed any resulting civil war?

It hasn't really.

Voter apathy and disillusionment with politics means you can now return a thumping majority with 30-35% of the vote on a low turnout.

Why this is different to, say, a thumping majority returned by 55% of the vote in a high turnout, is the Government in the first scenario is likely to be deeply unpopular and resented from the moment it's elected, with no grace period, and no ability to turn around that deep unpopularity due to having a pitiful support-base in the first place.

There are a lot of issues with FPTP, but total voter disengagement/disillusionment poses problems all of it's own.

That "inflection point" is extremely close (the governance bit, not civil war)!!

Apathy and disillusionment are indeed a major hurdle, but a large part of that is down to FPTP and the disproportional amount of power a minority of the population are given.

Had that power been more shared-out over the last few decades, we wouldn't be in half the mess we now are!

That said, I see that as all the more reason to encourage whoever I can to pressure their elected officials (from Councillors to MP) to Get PR Done!

Start here: https://www.change.org/MakeVotingMeaningful 😁

But if there was another referendum - the people that vote in polls don’t always get off their bums and vote in person.

But it hasn't been this war for a century (because it's only worth comparing full sufferage) Which is why there hasn't been a civil war.

Hence the largest all party(ish) parliamentary working party dedicated to looking at reform.

A serious referendum would have been just "Do you believe there should be a Royal Commission to report on changes to the electoral system"

YES
NO

if there had been a majority (as we now know, referendums only need a simple majority) then things could have proceeded with a report recommending certain outcomes and a series of votes in parliament.

But - as history already has recorded - it wasn't a serious referendum. It was a stitch up designed to procure a no result. Aided and abetted by the idiots who voted against because it wasn't "their" form of PR.

But nonetheless it's important that we, the people, are active too! 😉

Proportional systems have local representatives too, just a bit different to the single MP we're used to.

Sadly, "we fear change"...

Well the 70% of us who vote. Fuck the other 30%,

Turnout has been heading South for decades. I fear our democracy will "cease to be" if it goes any lower!

GET PR DONE!

30% turnout for local elections (if you are lucky) stretches the idea of democracy to it's limits.

So it's been this way for a century. Do you feel signs of civil war brewing?

Well, not. Because the event horizon I highlighted hasn't yet happened.

"When the two leading parties secure less than 50% of the popular vote".

I'll get back to you when it happens.

We weren't far off that in 2010 and 2024. I'm not seeing barricades yet 🤔

Why do you assume it would be a gradual process ?

Many things change slowly until they fail catastrophically.

(Also there were riots all over the UK in 2011, and 2024. And one mans riot is another mans Marston Moor)

Localised riots that changed nothing.

We don't tend to take to the streets. We're not french, you know!

They certainly changed some peoples lives - especially those that were killed.

To "Breaking Point"!!! 😦

You mean when the combined vote-share of Lab + Con is less than half?

In 2024, Labour formed the government with just over one-third of the vote, but nearly two-thirds of the seats.
Reform UK had the third-highest vote share, but very few seats.
This large gap between vote share and seat share is due to the UK’s first-past-the-post electoral system.
Smaller parties collectively won over 40% of the vote, a record level of fragmentation in UK politics.

This is a fundamental facet of our voting system. I’m surprised anyone who votes doesn’t know how it works. It’s been discussed, challenged and there was even a referendum to change it. Only 42% of the electorate bothered to turn out to vote for change, and almost 70% of those who did voted to keep the system we have.

In some ways it is fairer as the alternative would mean that areas with small populations would never get much representation. There are twice as many people in London as there are in Scotland, and 3 times as many as there are in Wales. If it was done purely on a share by vote, many more people would be disenfranchised.

Please explain in which ways FPTP is fairer, as I don't see any!

The 2011 Referendum was basically a "stitch-up".
The options where
a) the Status Quo (FPTP)
b) the Status Quo with a couple of tweaks (aka "AV", aka Alternative Vote, aka FPTP only without the "Spoiler Effect") >>

I agree that the last referendum was a stitch up. However there have been times lately when I've been glad for the current system, and I never thought I would say that.

My mp is working hard for my constituency, that’s what our system is. He’s also my neighbour and can be found in the local pub happy to talk to people. A proportional system looses the personal responsibility part and you don’t get independents either. Extreme parties do better under proportional representation, not a good thing