You had your vote and lost get over it, if it’s good enough for the BREXITers to yell it should be good enough for this, you don’t get to cherry pick which referendums get to rerun based on your personal whims, I’d be all for rerunning BREXIT if we did a PR one though, this time make it binding
Oh, oh, NOW the right-wing want to talk about proportional representation?
We had a referendum on this in 2011.
We can’t reverse the will of the people, can we?
I find it funny that when the Tories win the system is “fair and square” but the moment labour wins it’s “the system is wrong 34% of the vote shouldn’t be able to run the country” when that’s roughly what the Tories end up getting voter share wise in a lot of elections.
No government will reform the system that put it into power.
The only major Western country more behind us in representation is the US.
Ffs the results are not disproportionate, they are unrelated. No one was trying to win the popular vote.
Every party tried to win based on fptp, and Labour crushed all comers. If it was a competition for national vote share they (and everyone) would have campaigned very differently.
People vote tactically. People protest vote. People don’t bother to vote when their area is settled. You can’t judge our elections on the popular vote because it’s a competition that no one is competing in.
We should ditch FPTP, AV and PR. No votes at all. God bless the king!
It would actually make a lot of sense for Labour to do this.
Right now, they are benefiting from it, no doubt. But next time round, they’re going have had five years of complaining about not turning the ship around when given the chance. No, it doesn’t depend on whether the ship has turned around, or is looking better, or any reality of the situation. Next time, Reform and the Conservatives might well have reconciled, and thus might not be splitting each others’ votes.
If you look at how significant Reform was in this election, and how weak Labour support actually was, a Labour advisor might well worry that the result will flip and they will be the ones on the losing end of the election system next time.
PR would offer a middle ground here. They might lose their majority, but they wouldn’t lose it to a Conservative revival that would reverse whatever changes happen in the next five years. There would be a coalition government and the large parties would have to negotiate which things are reversed and which are kept.
The Uk should change from FPTP to some kind of ranked vote or mixed member proportional voting system. Even if it would benefit parties like Reform in the current political climate. I think they are symptom of having a government that doesn’t properly represent the public interest in the first place
This is the best time to push for it as Conservatives have typically been against electoral reform.
Labour controlling the country after receiving only 34% of the vote is crazy. FPTP has to go.
I”ve been advocating for a new system for years and spoiled my vote for this exact reason. Im left wing and would have voted for greens this year as I didnt like the negative campaigning from labour. We cant be in a position where millions of voters are not represented because of ftge FPTP system. I think that is one of the reasons why turnout is so low and people are disenfranchised with politics. The premise that you are voting for a local to represent you in parliament is long gone. The main parties just draft a candidate that often has no link to the local constituency. In a GE, apart from a few localused exceptions, voters are clearly now voting on who they want to run the country. In a huge Tory majority, my only real option was a tactical vote to Reform to try and displace the sitting Tory candidate (who is drafted in from the SE,). Its a nonsense.
It’s been disproportionate since they brought this method in. We even had a referendum the same media killed dead by completely silencing it.
The only way it’s going to be get invoked is if it’s a manifesto pledge. Nobody with a stonking majority is going to swap 100% of the power for 35%, so maybe vote tactically in 5 years if you really want it.
I suspect some in the media are just looking at the end of the tories and want to change the rules so they can have another sniff of power and getting their own way.
Anyone who opposes vote reform simply because we finally got the Tories out represents everything wrong with modern UK politics. Also no we never had a referendum on PR. FPTP is a garbage system, the fact that the main two parties will never speak about removing it tells you everything you need to know about their true feelings towards democracy.
I’m shocked and appalled by people defending FPTP in this thread, honestly at this point let’s just go back to monarchy and be done with voting.
As a leftist that has wanted PR for years, it’s very telling how the right now wants it after a single election of two parties splitting the vote (while we have had three to four parties splitting the vote for DECADES). What happened to the “The UK is not a demoracy, we are a Constitutional monarchy!!!!” comments???
I say we join them to pass it, then laugh at them when they regret it if Reform and the Tories ever merge.
I think looking over at France last night is a good counter argument.
I used to be all about PR but even before this election I started to change my mind. Look at France, they are not just facing hung parliament with the need for a coalition government. The “parties” involved are already alliances of multiple parties. It will be a coalition of alliances.
I’ve seen how difficult it is to govern while living in Italy, and the gov can always blame their failures on not having enough control.
Many FPTP defenders point to its notional ability to provide stability because it usually produces majority governments, and it shuts out the fringes. Obviously, the effect UKIP and now Reform have had on the Tories explodes that fantasy. The only sensible justification for keeping it now is because it keeps the big parties together and offers them the chance of absolute power if they get a narrow plurality of the vote. It’s antidemocratic.
There must be millions of people across the country who are sick of having an artificial duopoly forced down their throats. ‘Tactical voting’ is an imposition in the electorate, and frankly, so is the Conservative and Labour party.
I don’t remember this happening when the Tories benefit from the same thing
33.7% of the vote getting a majority of seats for Labour is clearly unfair and something needs to be done about it. 36.1% for the Tories in 2010, and 36.8% in 2015 was just fine.
I’m wondering if the problem might be the party that wins more than the numbers.
Tories never bring up how FPTP is a bad system during their 14 years, as soon as they’re out it’s not fair.
Fptp was voted on in recent years and the vote lost although it was smothered from the get go as it was a soft ball from the coalition and the system was terrible and shouldn’t have been av plus, but a variant of alternative member plus keep the constituency link but have a bonus pot of MPs for national share.
This election did highlight the system issue but as there’s never been as many four way races, reform shunted it’s way into the conversation and took votes from everywhere and the calls for reform now basically have mirrored the issues that affected the left for years being bemoaned by the right emphasising the Labour win. Seems unlikely agenda for term one as the right wing split and state of the conservatives mean a second Labour term could very easily repeat in five years.
Current situation forces consolidation of conservatives and reform or Darwinian selection and both parties are baulking in part at the prospect.
Logical fallacy, false equivalence.
National vote share is a PR measure.
Using it to assess a FPTP result is pointless, not least because campaigning by parties was done on a constituency basis, not a national vote basis.
Those that treated the campaign like it was a national one (Reform) lost accordingly. However, it is odd because before the campaign they themselves acknowledged that they would likely only win a certain number of seats.
People like Jeremy Corbyn and other independents understood how to take advantage of FPTP. They fought on Hyperlocal issues, relevant mainly to their constituency and won as a result.
This is the beauty of FPTP. That a single constituency, potentially with unique characteristics, can be represented in Parliament.
It’ll never happen as the two main parties will never back it.
Where these same articles and thoughts from the same people aired in the last few previous elections. This issue is nothing new, it’s just that because they’re on the receiving end they don’t like it anymore.
Also the chat about vote share is equally as hypocritical, has there been any vote shares over 50% of the mandate in recent history? I don’t remember this sort of reaction when tories one the last 3 elections with less than 50% of the share so why is this different?
I’m glad that this is being seriously debated but seems to smack of hypocrisy by some pundits who had no problem with the massive Tory majority in 2019.
Labour would have got a higher vote share if it wasn’t for voter apathy. The polls for about 2 years leading up to the election had Labour on at least 40%. It appears as if many didn’t vote because it was a foregone conclusion.
Idiots in this thread, just because we got Labour in massive this time. It’s not a fair 2 party first past the post is entirely undemocratic. Why can’t I spend my vote for greens if I want to? Because it’s nearly always a pointless vote, no vote should’ve pointless. Get your head out your ass this isn’t about left vs right it’s about every vote counting and the smaller parties and ideas being represented
Defending Reform is a very odd feeling but it is downright ridiculous that they got ~14% of the vote and returned 5 MPs, while Plaid Cymru got 0.7% of the vote and returned 4 MPs.
Ultimately the only reason why protest parties like Reform or UKIP ever exist in the first place is because of the failures of FPTP, and it’s a large reason why major parties have to adopt extremist policies in order to maintain their slim vote share. We likely would never have had Brexit for example if UKIP either didn’t exist or could’ve campaigned in their own little minority of MPs.
How would parliament work provided that proportional representation is implemented?
Each seat is mp is decided by the constituency they represent, how would seats be allocated in a system where you aren’t voting for your mps but rather voting for your parties?
Well I for one am happy that we don’t have more racist, mysogynistic, neo fascist, reform twats in parliament. It’s going to be painful enough with the disproportionate amount of coverage nazi Nigel is going to get as it is.
As I’ve said several times previously; you can’t question the working of Baron Matthew Elliott of Mickle Fell; I mean come on now if we are questioning a 2011 referendum where the gap was 20 odd points, I’m sure there’s a referendum from 2016 that’s a bit closer that would want in on this.
Let’s have a look at the ‘stability’ that been offered by FPTP in the last 14 years, which supposedly one of it’s advantages and allows for majority governments that can pass through laws:
2010 – Hung parliament forces coalition
2015 – Cameron scrapes a tiny majority due to promising the EU vote, which he loses anyway and resigns
2017 – May forced into ‘confidence and supply’ deal after losing majority, resigns as parliament in constant deadlock over the withdrawal agreement
2019 – The only time a significant majority is created, the country has 3 Prime Minister’s in a term, one of which fails to outlast a lettuce
Unironically defending FTFP while also simultaneously trying to explain Labour’s terrible share of the vote being down to tactical voting is peak reddit.
If people are gaming the system instead of voting for the party they want then that is obviously the sign of a functioning democracy. 66% of voters didn’t vote for the party that won a landslide.
All the racists that have had to bail out of voting for Tory finally want Proportional representation lmfao
Friendly reminder the centre and left got around 55-60% of the votes depending on how you allocation smaller parties. The people who lost out here were the LDs and Greens who would have been part of a coalition.
The right got about 39% of the vote.
The result was skewed but it’s broadly correct but not precisely correct.
Voting change should because it excludes smaller parties over the long term not because of one result.
36 comments
You had your vote and lost get over it, if it’s good enough for the BREXITers to yell it should be good enough for this, you don’t get to cherry pick which referendums get to rerun based on your personal whims, I’d be all for rerunning BREXIT if we did a PR one though, this time make it binding
Oh, oh, NOW the right-wing want to talk about proportional representation?
We had a referendum on this in 2011.
We can’t reverse the will of the people, can we?
I find it funny that when the Tories win the system is “fair and square” but the moment labour wins it’s “the system is wrong 34% of the vote shouldn’t be able to run the country” when that’s roughly what the Tories end up getting voter share wise in a lot of elections.
No government will reform the system that put it into power.
The only major Western country more behind us in representation is the US.
Ffs the results are not disproportionate, they are unrelated. No one was trying to win the popular vote.
Every party tried to win based on fptp, and Labour crushed all comers. If it was a competition for national vote share they (and everyone) would have campaigned very differently.
People vote tactically. People protest vote. People don’t bother to vote when their area is settled. You can’t judge our elections on the popular vote because it’s a competition that no one is competing in.
We should ditch FPTP, AV and PR. No votes at all. God bless the king!
It would actually make a lot of sense for Labour to do this.
Right now, they are benefiting from it, no doubt. But next time round, they’re going have had five years of complaining about not turning the ship around when given the chance. No, it doesn’t depend on whether the ship has turned around, or is looking better, or any reality of the situation. Next time, Reform and the Conservatives might well have reconciled, and thus might not be splitting each others’ votes.
If you look at how significant Reform was in this election, and how weak Labour support actually was, a Labour advisor might well worry that the result will flip and they will be the ones on the losing end of the election system next time.
PR would offer a middle ground here. They might lose their majority, but they wouldn’t lose it to a Conservative revival that would reverse whatever changes happen in the next five years. There would be a coalition government and the large parties would have to negotiate which things are reversed and which are kept.
The Uk should change from FPTP to some kind of ranked vote or mixed member proportional voting system. Even if it would benefit parties like Reform in the current political climate. I think they are symptom of having a government that doesn’t properly represent the public interest in the first place
This is the best time to push for it as Conservatives have typically been against electoral reform.
Labour controlling the country after receiving only 34% of the vote is crazy. FPTP has to go.
I”ve been advocating for a new system for years and spoiled my vote for this exact reason. Im left wing and would have voted for greens this year as I didnt like the negative campaigning from labour. We cant be in a position where millions of voters are not represented because of ftge FPTP system. I think that is one of the reasons why turnout is so low and people are disenfranchised with politics. The premise that you are voting for a local to represent you in parliament is long gone. The main parties just draft a candidate that often has no link to the local constituency. In a GE, apart from a few localused exceptions, voters are clearly now voting on who they want to run the country. In a huge Tory majority, my only real option was a tactical vote to Reform to try and displace the sitting Tory candidate (who is drafted in from the SE,). Its a nonsense.
It’s been disproportionate since they brought this method in. We even had a referendum the same media killed dead by completely silencing it.
The only way it’s going to be get invoked is if it’s a manifesto pledge. Nobody with a stonking majority is going to swap 100% of the power for 35%, so maybe vote tactically in 5 years if you really want it.
I suspect some in the media are just looking at the end of the tories and want to change the rules so they can have another sniff of power and getting their own way.
[Mixed-member proportional representation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed-member_proportional_representation)
or, better still, [Sortition](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition)
Anyone who opposes vote reform simply because we finally got the Tories out represents everything wrong with modern UK politics. Also no we never had a referendum on PR. FPTP is a garbage system, the fact that the main two parties will never speak about removing it tells you everything you need to know about their true feelings towards democracy.
I’m shocked and appalled by people defending FPTP in this thread, honestly at this point let’s just go back to monarchy and be done with voting.
As a leftist that has wanted PR for years, it’s very telling how the right now wants it after a single election of two parties splitting the vote (while we have had three to four parties splitting the vote for DECADES). What happened to the “The UK is not a demoracy, we are a Constitutional monarchy!!!!” comments???
I say we join them to pass it, then laugh at them when they regret it if Reform and the Tories ever merge.
I think looking over at France last night is a good counter argument.
I used to be all about PR but even before this election I started to change my mind. Look at France, they are not just facing hung parliament with the need for a coalition government. The “parties” involved are already alliances of multiple parties. It will be a coalition of alliances.
I’ve seen how difficult it is to govern while living in Italy, and the gov can always blame their failures on not having enough control.
Many FPTP defenders point to its notional ability to provide stability because it usually produces majority governments, and it shuts out the fringes. Obviously, the effect UKIP and now Reform have had on the Tories explodes that fantasy. The only sensible justification for keeping it now is because it keeps the big parties together and offers them the chance of absolute power if they get a narrow plurality of the vote. It’s antidemocratic.
There must be millions of people across the country who are sick of having an artificial duopoly forced down their throats. ‘Tactical voting’ is an imposition in the electorate, and frankly, so is the Conservative and Labour party.
I don’t remember this happening when the Tories benefit from the same thing
33.7% of the vote getting a majority of seats for Labour is clearly unfair and something needs to be done about it. 36.1% for the Tories in 2010, and 36.8% in 2015 was just fine.
I’m wondering if the problem might be the party that wins more than the numbers.
Tories never bring up how FPTP is a bad system during their 14 years, as soon as they’re out it’s not fair.
Fptp was voted on in recent years and the vote lost although it was smothered from the get go as it was a soft ball from the coalition and the system was terrible and shouldn’t have been av plus, but a variant of alternative member plus keep the constituency link but have a bonus pot of MPs for national share.
This election did highlight the system issue but as there’s never been as many four way races, reform shunted it’s way into the conversation and took votes from everywhere and the calls for reform now basically have mirrored the issues that affected the left for years being bemoaned by the right emphasising the Labour win. Seems unlikely agenda for term one as the right wing split and state of the conservatives mean a second Labour term could very easily repeat in five years.
Current situation forces consolidation of conservatives and reform or Darwinian selection and both parties are baulking in part at the prospect.
Logical fallacy, false equivalence.
National vote share is a PR measure.
Using it to assess a FPTP result is pointless, not least because campaigning by parties was done on a constituency basis, not a national vote basis.
Those that treated the campaign like it was a national one (Reform) lost accordingly. However, it is odd because before the campaign they themselves acknowledged that they would likely only win a certain number of seats.
People like Jeremy Corbyn and other independents understood how to take advantage of FPTP. They fought on Hyperlocal issues, relevant mainly to their constituency and won as a result.
This is the beauty of FPTP. That a single constituency, potentially with unique characteristics, can be represented in Parliament.
It’ll never happen as the two main parties will never back it.
Where these same articles and thoughts from the same people aired in the last few previous elections. This issue is nothing new, it’s just that because they’re on the receiving end they don’t like it anymore.
Also the chat about vote share is equally as hypocritical, has there been any vote shares over 50% of the mandate in recent history? I don’t remember this sort of reaction when tories one the last 3 elections with less than 50% of the share so why is this different?
I’m glad that this is being seriously debated but seems to smack of hypocrisy by some pundits who had no problem with the massive Tory majority in 2019.
Labour would have got a higher vote share if it wasn’t for voter apathy. The polls for about 2 years leading up to the election had Labour on at least 40%. It appears as if many didn’t vote because it was a foregone conclusion.
Idiots in this thread, just because we got Labour in massive this time. It’s not a fair 2 party first past the post is entirely undemocratic. Why can’t I spend my vote for greens if I want to? Because it’s nearly always a pointless vote, no vote should’ve pointless. Get your head out your ass this isn’t about left vs right it’s about every vote counting and the smaller parties and ideas being represented
Defending Reform is a very odd feeling but it is downright ridiculous that they got ~14% of the vote and returned 5 MPs, while Plaid Cymru got 0.7% of the vote and returned 4 MPs.
Ultimately the only reason why protest parties like Reform or UKIP ever exist in the first place is because of the failures of FPTP, and it’s a large reason why major parties have to adopt extremist policies in order to maintain their slim vote share. We likely would never have had Brexit for example if UKIP either didn’t exist or could’ve campaigned in their own little minority of MPs.
How would parliament work provided that proportional representation is implemented?
Each seat is mp is decided by the constituency they represent, how would seats be allocated in a system where you aren’t voting for your mps but rather voting for your parties?
Well I for one am happy that we don’t have more racist, mysogynistic, neo fascist, reform twats in parliament. It’s going to be painful enough with the disproportionate amount of coverage nazi Nigel is going to get as it is.
As I’ve said several times previously; you can’t question the working of Baron Matthew Elliott of Mickle Fell; I mean come on now if we are questioning a 2011 referendum where the gap was 20 odd points, I’m sure there’s a referendum from 2016 that’s a bit closer that would want in on this.
Let’s have a look at the ‘stability’ that been offered by FPTP in the last 14 years, which supposedly one of it’s advantages and allows for majority governments that can pass through laws:
2010 – Hung parliament forces coalition
2015 – Cameron scrapes a tiny majority due to promising the EU vote, which he loses anyway and resigns
2017 – May forced into ‘confidence and supply’ deal after losing majority, resigns as parliament in constant deadlock over the withdrawal agreement
2019 – The only time a significant majority is created, the country has 3 Prime Minister’s in a term, one of which fails to outlast a lettuce
Unironically defending FTFP while also simultaneously trying to explain Labour’s terrible share of the vote being down to tactical voting is peak reddit.
If people are gaming the system instead of voting for the party they want then that is obviously the sign of a functioning democracy. 66% of voters didn’t vote for the party that won a landslide.
All the racists that have had to bail out of voting for Tory finally want Proportional representation lmfao
Friendly reminder the centre and left got around 55-60% of the votes depending on how you allocation smaller parties. The people who lost out here were the LDs and Greens who would have been part of a coalition.
The right got about 39% of the vote.
The result was skewed but it’s broadly correct but not precisely correct.
Voting change should because it excludes smaller parties over the long term not because of one result.