UK Electoral reform

[mdgv2]

How do! 

So with the General Election done and dusted, it’s time to take honest stock of just how wonky our First Past The Post (FPTP) system is. In short? Despite having a truly staggering majority, the new Labour Government did so off the back of a low voter turnout, and a worryingly low share of the vote for the number of seats it now holds.

And as much I fucking despise the racist wankers involved in Reform, they got screwed by FPTP. For 14.3% of the total vote, they wound up with just 5 of 650 seats.

Meanwhile, the Greens got 6.8% of the vote, but 4 seats.

Even Labour’s astonishing turn around is based on very slim majorities. Indeed as I understand it? This majority Parliament actually got a smaller percentage of the vote than in 2019. Which seems inherently ludicrous.

So it seems clear to me that the electoral system just isn’t fit for purpose. And I suspect that feeds into voter apathy, as under FPTP there is such a thing as a wasted vote. I also think it stifles the appeal of smaller parties, from the Lib Dems and down.

Whats the solution? Electoral reform. But what shape do you think it should take? Proportional Representation (PR), Alternative Vote (AV), something else? How should MPs be elected under PR? And all the other questions.

[redchimera]

Almost anything could be better - I'm in favour of PR.

But let's not get too sympathetic for the Gammon Party. If Nige had scored 100+ seats, he'd be screaming that they won it 'fair and square'. He's like Trump, if it looks bad for him it's unfair, rigged.

[mdgv2]

Oh absolutely. Pretty sure he campaigned against AV last time around, then when UKIP got pumped in 2016, completely changed his tune.

But, FPTP remains a pretty weak system overall.

[Haighus]

It is definitely needed, but whichever party is in power has no incentive to do it beyond morals. I can see a situation where we might get a hung parliament in 2029 which leads to electoral reform, but it seems unlikely otherwise.

To illustrate the scale of the issue, some Labour vote counts and shares:
1997:
43.2%
13,518,167 votes
418 seats

2017:
40%
12,877,918 votes
262 seats

2019:
32.2%
10,269,051 votes
202 seats

2024:
33.7%
9,712,011 votes
411 seats

There are 650 seats with 326+ needed for a majority.

That just isn't representative of the actual will of the population, whichever way you spin it. It is actually possible for a party to win a majority whilst another party gets a higher vote count if the votes are distributed in the right way (which is how gerrymandering works).

FPTP is only really fair if there are precisely two parties and no gerrymandering, and that just limits voters massively.

[Haighus]

Re. solutions- I favour some form of PR myself.

[crispy78]

Heck, look at the Lib Dems over the last 2 elections.

2019 - 11.6% of the vote (3,696,419 votes) - 11 seats, and essentially an irrelevance

2024 - 12.2% of the vote (3,519,163 votes) - 72 seats, and 3rd biggest party

Sure, a lot depends on where those votes are, and I think they were a LOT more focused and tactical about their campaigning this year - but that just shows the variation possible while getting damn near the same votes 2 elections running. Pretty much every other country in the developed world (think it's just us and Belarus clinging on) have moved away from FPTP for a reason...

[mdgv2]

So if we went PR? What’s the best way to translate vote share into MPs.

I mean, which constituency would be assigned to which party?

AV as I understand uses the existing Local MP structure, but instead of “one person, one vote” it’s ranking in preference, with the winner requiring 51% after rounds of counting preference. This seems quite close to what we have, but theoretically adds legitimacy to the eventual winner as the person most trusted, even if not everyone’s first pick. I see the benefit, but also the controversy.

[Haighus]

Jul 6, 2024 12:04:40 GMT -5 crispy78 said:

Heck, look at the Lib Dems over the last 2 elections.

2019 - 11.6% of the vote (3,696,419 votes) - 11 seats, and essentially an irrelevance

2024 - 12.2% of the vote (3,519,163 votes) - 72 seats, and 3rd biggest party

Sure, a lot depends on where those votes are, and I think they were a LOT more focused and tactical about their campaigning this year - but that just shows the variation possible while getting damn near the same votes 2 elections running. Pretty much every other country in the developed world (think it's just us and Belarus clinging on) have moved away from FPTP for a reason...

Is the US not also FPTP in most regards?

[Haighus]

Jul 6, 2024 13:22:34 GMT -5 mdgv2 said:

So if we went PR? What’s the best way to translate vote share into MPs.

I mean, which constituency would be assigned to which party?

AV as I understand uses the existing Local MP structure, but instead of “one person, one vote” it’s ranking in preference, with the winner requiring 51% after rounds of counting preference. This seems quite close to what we have, but theoretically adds legitimacy to the eventual winner as the person most trusted, even if not everyone’s first pick. I see the benefit, but also the controversy.

So, I don't think having a named constituency MP has ever helped me, and I don't think I'm unusual. I've mostly lived in Tory areas, and contacting my MP has only ever received a boilerplate response, if any.

I'd rather leave local issues to devolved local and regional government, and have a national parliament based on vote share

[mdgv2]

Jul 6, 2024 15:38:19 GMT -5 Haighus said:

Jul 6, 2024 12:04:40 GMT -5 crispy78 said:

Heck, look at the Lib Dems over the last 2 elections.

2019 - 11.6% of the vote (3,696,419 votes) - 11 seats, and essentially an irrelevance

2024 - 12.2% of the vote (3,519,163 votes) - 72 seats, and 3rd biggest party

Sure, a lot depends on where those votes are, and I think they were a LOT more focused and tactical about their campaigning this year - but that just shows the variation possible while getting damn near the same votes 2 elections running. Pretty much every other country in the developed world (think it's just us and Belarus clinging on) have moved away from FPTP for a reason...

Is the US not also FPTP in most regards?

Kind of? As I understand it, each State gets electoral votes based on percentage of the population. So a more densely populated state has greater clout in determining President. But….they’re awarded on a FPTP system, rather than proportional.

[Peregrine]

Jul 6, 2024 16:05:47 GMT -5 mdgv2 said:

Kind of? As I understand it, each State gets electoral votes based on percentage of the population. So a more densely populated state has greater clout in determining President. But….they’re awarded on a FPTP system, rather than proportional.

For president, yes, it's the weird electoral college system. But for the legislature it works the same as in the UK: each district has its own separate election and the single winner of that election gets the seat, there are no points for second place. And why should there be? Why should a district lose its choice of representative just because some other district had a bunch of votes for the losing party?

[mdgv2]

Different beasts I guess, as it seems an individual state has greater powers of governance compared to areas in the UK, including Scotland where we like to be difficult and have slightly different laws.

But the theory behind Proportional Representation is a government better reflecting the mood and will of the entire country. But please note I’m not arguing “and the US should adopt it too”. Not my country, not my business.

[skyth]

I'm more a fan of ranked choice.

[semipotentwalrus]

Jul 6, 2024 16:10:31 GMT -5 Peregrine said:

Jul 6, 2024 16:05:47 GMT -5 mdgv2 said:

Kind of? As I understand it, each State gets electoral votes based on percentage of the population. So a more densely populated state has greater clout in determining President. But….they’re awarded on a FPTP system, rather than proportional.

For president, yes, it's the weird electoral college system. But for the legislature it works the same as in the UK: each district has its own separate election and the single winner of that election gets the seat, there are no points for second place. And why should there be? Why should a district lose its choice of representative just because some other district had a bunch of votes for the losing party?

Because democracy is rule by the people, not rule by the arbitrary geographical divisions? Regardless, if one is dead set on having local representatives Germany's model (both representatives for specific constituencies and at-large representatives) would work to give a more proportional representation without sacrificing the local representatives.

[Peregrine]

Jul 6, 2024 16:35:18 GMT -5 mdgv2 said:

But the theory behind Proportional Representation is a government better reflecting the mood and will of the entire country.

I suppose that's a question of political philosophy then: is the legislature supposed to be a single national entity looking only at the needs and wishes of the country as a whole or is it an assembly of delegates from each city/region/etc representing the interests of their constituents? I suppose one could make the argument that it should become the first but in that case why have so many members? Cutting it down to maybe 10-20 MPs selected in proportion to a single nation-wide vote is all you'd need.

Jul 6, 2024 17:33:33 GMT -5 semipotentwalrus said:

Because democracy is rule by the people, not rule by the arbitrary geographical divisions?

It is not arbitrary, or at least it is not intended to be. A town or region is an entity with natural borders and shared interests and so, rather than deal with the unwieldy nature of direct democracy at a national level, we have that entity select a representative to act on their behalf in the national government. It's arguably closer to the ideals of democracy than having a nation-wide system where a very regional party can have full control without caring about the interest of anything outside their region as long as that region has enough voters to hit the 51% threshold.