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?!?!?!

You are glad that Farage could be the next PM on 1/3 of the Votes!?!?!?!

I was a massive advocate for fixed term parliaments and was happy when the LDs forced the law through.

However I am happy to admit - in hindsight - that the naysayers were actually pretty spot on in their warnings.

In a couple of centuries, the only positive thing that will be written about the Johnson years will be the abolition of the FTPA.

You only have to look at the Horlicks in the US to see what being saddled with an administration leads to.

The quickest single simple fix to our democratic system would be to abolish the party whips and have MPs vote closer to the public will, rather than an arbitrary party line. But absent that some sort of PR would help.

But you can have the best system in the world, and if people choose not to engage it can still fail.

Do you always make things up? No, I'm glad that the current system keeps him out.

I'm not making it up!

Keir Starmer became Prime Minister after Labour won 33.7% of the UK-wide popular vote at the 2024 general election.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_Kingdom_general_election

What you made up is what you inferred from my post. It happens when someone is so keen to bang a certain drum, they can end up reading what they want into anything.

Apologies if I misunderstood something. What bit did I make up exactly?

Assuming that saying there have been times in glad we didn't get AV means I want farage in on any number of votes. That's what's known as a non sequitur.

You can't really compare "what you get" with "what you might have got" unless you assume everyone is equally thick.

However if there was an alternative voting system, then it isn't a given everyone would vote the same.

My #1 priority in 2024 was to ensure that the Tories and/or Reform did not get into power. That meant voting Labour or giving up. When I am far more a natural Liberal-type person.

Had we had a form of PR that allowed me to go : #1 LD, #2 Labour. #3 Green then I would not have "voted Labour".

It's quite possible that 2028/2029 could bring us another no overall majority parliament.

Fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of our government system on your part @Woj does not actually mean that the system is particularly more flawed than any other.

We have a system that elects representatives by geographical area. We do not have a system of Proportional Representation. By all means you are welcome to campaign for PR but that system is flawed too in different ways.

When representatives are elected by geographical area there will naturally be under-representation of minority views. Any party that enjoys nationwide support of 5-10% of the population will win next to zero seats (exceptions if there are enckaves of their supporters somewhere).

Personally I favour Simgke Transferable Vote but we had a referendum about that and people didn't like the idea. That's democracy for you.

Part of the problem the UK has is "geographical" representatives who actively support policies that disadvantage their constituents because it's party policy.

The best example of this is my local MP who deliberately voted for a bill that closed a swathe of local post offices. She was told before the vote that there were a lot of constituents who were opposed to he idea. But vote for it she did.

She then had the brass neck to turn up outside my closing local post office (less than 2 mins walk from me) to try to get her face in the local paper with a placard opposing the closure. In the end no story was run because a gobby local resident told the protest she had actually voted for the measure and a "heated debate" occurred. Sadly she then went from shafting a few hundred thousand to shafting the entire country. But that's a story for another day.

Yes @SerendipityJane that is one of the flaws with the current system - but one of the advantages is that you and your fellow constituents can oust her at the next election for this betrayal - either voting for a different party or putting up a local independent candidate who will put local interests first.

In countries that have PR it's very difficult to get rid of unpopular slimeballs from power because the party controls the list of people it wants in government, and your vote goes to a tally that dictates how many people from that list get seats - so if somone is popular in the party (or unpopular but needs to be kept sweet as they know where the bodies are) then it doesn't matter how much the voters hate them, they still get a seat.

I think in the digital age it ought to be possible to have a representational democracy that isn't geographical. Each voter has one vote but you can give it to a candidate that most closely represents your views, regardless of geographical location. It would be a huge change though and would have just as many flaws as any other option.

I am a campaigner for PR, primarily because the current system largely ignores the will of the majority.

There is no such thing as a perfect system, of any kind. Any system devised by Man will be flawed in some way or another...

However, I do consider FPTP to be the worst choice of all systems, proportional or not!

I also favour STV out of all the PR systems, but I'm not fixated on it. I'd settle for MMP for example.

Under PR there are no "safe Seats" (at least not in same way as we have now) and this results in less arrogance on the part of the elected individual.They are more dependent by how many votes they get instead of whether they got 1+ more vote than their competitors.

The 2011 Referendum was a vote between the status quo (FPTP) and AV, not STV. If it had been perhaps more would've bothered to vote at all...?

There are lots of ways you could implement PR, with or without Party Lists for example.

^@CactusSwoonedEnding ^

Why it’s often true in PR (proportional representation) systems:

• Party lists protect individuals. In many PR systems, voters choose parties rather than candidates. If a party keeps an unpopular “slimeball” high on its list, that person can get re-elected even if voters dislike them personally.
• Safe list positions. Once someone has a secure spot on a party list, voters may have no direct way to punish that individual without punishing the whole party.
• Coalition politics dilute blame. Power is shared, so it’s harder for voters to clearly assign responsibility and vote someone out.

Why it’s not always true:

• Open-list PR. In countries like Finland or Brazil, voters can rank or choose candidates within a party, making it much easier to dump unpopular individuals.
• Internal party discipline. Parties sometimes remove toxic figures themselves to avoid electoral damage.
• Scandals still matter. Even in closed-list PR, severe unpopularity or scandal can force resignations.

PR systems tend to make it harder to remove unpopular individuals than winner-take-all systems if the system uses closed party lists.

But PR does not automatically protect slimeballs—the design details matter a lot.

Indeed, and I apologise profusely therefore!

I am a campaigner for PR, primarily because the current system largely ignores the will of the majority.

But do we really want to be ruled by "the majority" ? What if the majority want no tax and like the idea of slavery ?

People are increasingly confusing "the majority" with "the mob". (Indeed, it seems the US has now succumbed to literal mob rule. ...)

Also this rather childish idea that our representatives are expected to somehow merely parrot and advocate for whatever is flavour of the moment in their neck of the woods. There is a difference between a delegate and a representative.

By "majority" I refer to everyone who didn't vote for Labour in 2024, namely 66.4% of us.

But that 66.4% aren't all supporters of the "no tax and slavery" Party, they're a mix of various colours.

I propose that the "Will of the People" is not one single thing, but a blend of many ideas.
Not all these ideas need necessarily be implemented in full, but more people should at least get some of what they voted for, instead of "all or nothing".

In any group you're part of, if no-one ever made compromises, either nothing would get done or you'd always be fighting each other!
Maybe therein lies the difference between "majority" and "mob"...?

I propose that the "Will of the People" is not one single thing, but a blend of many ideas.

It used to be. Brexit broke that.

Was it? Can't say I ever noticed that level of "social unity" during my life.

Brexit has certainly allowed more people to say more (nasty) things they never felt they could...

Thank you.