| First past the post is no longer fit for purpose 10:17 - Jul 3 with 5380 views | GlasgowBlue |
In theory, 130k votes separate a 200 seat Labour majority from a hung parliament
But 200k going the other way could leave the Tories with zero seats.
|  |
| |  |
| First past the post is no longer fit for purpose on 10:22 - Jul 3 with 3431 views | DJR |
That's certainly true. |  | | |
| First past the post is no longer fit for purpose on 10:22 - Jul 3 with 3427 views | _clive_baker_ |
On this occasion I'm quite grateful for it as I can't believe over 1/3 of the population are going to vote for either the Tories or Reform, it genuinely blows my mind. They'll end up with 15% of the seats combined off about 35%+ vote share according to the polls.
In principle I do agree though, its a BS system. |  | | |
| First past the post is no longer fit for purpose on 10:35 - Jul 3 with 3367 views | WD19 |
Surely 'in theory' <1000 votes do that?
As an aside, I disagree. FYP is imperfect, but I would much rather this than giving a voice to extremeist nutjobs and declining into dirty and undemocratic horsetrading. [Post edited 3 Jul 2024 10:38]
|  | | |
| First past the post is no longer fit for purpose on 10:35 - Jul 3 with 3363 views | giant_stow |
Not to doubt you or your point but what are those figures based on? |  |
| |
| First past the post is no longer fit for purpose on 10:42 - Jul 3 with 3309 views | GeoffSentence |
No longer?
It's never been fit for purpose in the era of multi-party politics.
Tories are just realiising that now that it is no longer their route to unfettered power. |  |
| |
| First past the post is no longer fit for purpose on 10:43 - Jul 3 with 3303 views | Steve_M |
Maybe Cameron shouldn't have manipulated the referendum on voting reform in 2011 then, although quite why Clegg agreed to such a feeble offering is equally hard to fathom. Even within the last parliament, the Tories have actively moved back to FPTP in London.
FPTP is no firewall to the extremes either when the Tories have spent the last 15 years ever more desperate to please the small minority of the population who hate all foreigners.
I've always thought that PR in a sensible form is better than FPTP. |  |
| |
| First past the post is no longer fit for purpose on 10:48 - Jul 3 with 3255 views | DarkBrandon |
I think there are lots of good arguments against FPTP, but those aren’t it.
In order to shift 130k votes in the marginals, you really need to shift millions of votes across the country. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| First past the post is no longer fit for purpose on 11:10 - Jul 3 with 3139 views | Keno |
seen saying it for years |  |
| |
| First past the post is no longer fit for purpose on 11:17 - Jul 3 with 3094 views | baxterbasics |
Ever since I had to write an essay on the subject back in 2010 I have defended FPTP.
But it is getting increasingly hard to do so because our political landscape has become so fractured. Niche interests and tribalism in spades.
It used to be the two parties were broad churches accommodating a range of world views across left and right. Starmer is purging the left, and the right end of the tories have thrown the toys out of the pram. There is no longer mass-engagement in these two parties among the voting public.
So yes the current system is definitely creaking under the pressure. |  |
| |
| First past the post is no longer fit for purpose on 11:20 - Jul 3 with 3066 views | Vegtablue |
| First past the post is no longer fit for purpose on 10:43 - Jul 3 by Steve_M |
Maybe Cameron shouldn't have manipulated the referendum on voting reform in 2011 then, although quite why Clegg agreed to such a feeble offering is equally hard to fathom. Even within the last parliament, the Tories have actively moved back to FPTP in London.
FPTP is no firewall to the extremes either when the Tories have spent the last 15 years ever more desperate to please the small minority of the population who hate all foreigners.
I've always thought that PR in a sensible form is better than FPTP. |
Quite right, I'd laugh hard if FPTP was now their downfall. |  | | |
| First past the post is no longer fit for purpose on 11:52 - Jul 3 with 2971 views | Pinewoodblue |
| First past the post is no longer fit for purpose on 11:20 - Jul 3 by Vegtablue |
Quite right, I'd laugh hard if FPTP was now their downfall. |
While the majority of Labour Party members, and Unions, support PR Starmer is openly opposed to it so do hold your breath.
Practically of forming a government under PR can be a problem it has tasked the Dutch 233 days to form a new government. There is a lot of incompatible between the parties that have got together.
https://www.politico.eu/article/netherlands-right-wing-government-dick-schoof-ma [Post edited 3 Jul 2024 11:58]
|  |
| |
| First past the post is no longer fit for purpose on 11:52 - Jul 3 with 2973 views | redrickstuhaart |
Similar to previous elections where it worked very nicely for the conservaties....
But NOW its a problem... | | | |
| First past the post is no longer fit for purpose on 11:58 - Jul 3 with 2939 views | bluelagos |
No longer?
FPTP has always been deeply undemocratic and will remain so on Friday morning even when giving the Tories a kicking.
I despise Farage/Reform but they deserve the appropriate number of MPs, same with Greens. [Post edited 3 Jul 2024 12:02]
|  |
| |
| First past the post is no longer fit for purpose on 12:00 - Jul 3 with 2921 views | baxterbasics |
| First past the post is no longer fit for purpose on 11:52 - Jul 3 by redrickstuhaart |
Similar to previous elections where it worked very nicely for the conservaties....
But NOW its a problem... |
The real problem is that no party that wins a majority will ever contemplate changing the system. Yet only they can introduce and pass the required legislation. Which is why I see it as unlikely any time soon. Unless votes become so fractured that we see a series of hung parliaments returned, then it might become unavoidable. | |
| |
| First past the post is no longer fit for purpose on 12:25 - Jul 3 with 2794 views | Kentish_Tractor |
The whole point of the FPTP system is that you pick a representative in parliament that directly represents YOU and your community at a national level.
If you shift to a fully PR system you lose any element of local representation at parliamentary level and therefore have nobody directly accountable to national government.
I would favour reform to the current system towards more of a hybrid system, where parliament is formed of local representatives plus a top-up of MPs selected via the PR system.
Whether parliament could support such an increase in MP numbers I do not know - but it would allow a voice to those that normally wouldn't be heard. | |
| |
| First past the post is no longer fit for purpose on 12:29 - Jul 3 with 2735 views | Swansea_Blue |
| First past the post is no longer fit for purpose on 10:35 - Jul 3 by WD19 |
Surely 'in theory' <1000 votes do that?
As an aside, I disagree. FYP is imperfect, but I would much rather this than giving a voice to extremeist nutjobs and declining into dirty and undemocratic horsetrading. [Post edited 3 Jul 2024 10:38]
|
You see horse trading, I see compromises where different viewpoints are heard and excesses avoided. I’ve no idea who’s best, but I suspect we wouldn’t be seeing things like Rwanda or the catastrophic Truss experiment under power sharing. |  |
| |
| First past the post is no longer fit for purpose on 12:36 - Jul 3 with 2699 views | Kievthegreat |
It was either fit for purpose or it wasn't. "No longer" implies something has changed to break the system, but that's just not true. The results your alluding to are not a bug of our electoral system. They are the system working as intended.
The same things you point out here were also broadly true in 2019 and all prior elections. FPTP is a terrible system and horribly underrepresents people votes in a large number of scenarios. Especially when you have more than 2 parties.
The only thing unique about this election is that the Tories are the ones being shafted for once, hence suddenly a lot of the client media now reporting about how this election is bad for democracy while BoJos landslide was a triumph. [Post edited 3 Jul 2024 12:38]
|  | | |
| First past the post is no longer fit for purpose on 12:40 - Jul 3 with 2658 views | bluelagos |
| First past the post is no longer fit for purpose on 12:25 - Jul 3 by Kentish_Tractor |
The whole point of the FPTP system is that you pick a representative in parliament that directly represents YOU and your community at a national level.
If you shift to a fully PR system you lose any element of local representation at parliamentary level and therefore have nobody directly accountable to national government.
I would favour reform to the current system towards more of a hybrid system, where parliament is formed of local representatives plus a top-up of MPs selected via the PR system.
Whether parliament could support such an increase in MP numbers I do not know - but it would allow a voice to those that normally wouldn't be heard. |
If you shrink the number of constituencies to 400 and had 250 MPs allocated to top up any party along PR lines - then you wouldn't have to expand parliament.
Only downside would be that an MPs workload (supporting constituents via surgeries) would go up as the constituencies would be larger/have more voters. | |
| |
| First past the post is no longer fit for purpose on 12:53 - Jul 3 with 2622 views | itfcjoe |
I always find these sort of stats a bit pointless, because probably every election ever has had a number like this which would swing the election if every single person moved from one party to their nearest competitor to give them a majority of 1.
I think FPTP is better than the other options personally, in actually delivering a Govt with the ability to achieve things |  |
| |
| First past the post is no longer fit for purpose on 13:14 - Jul 3 with 2546 views | Help |
FPTP is not and has never been perfect, but then no PR system is either. You only have to look at all the countries that have variations of PR, to see that there is no version of PR that does not itself bring problems. FPTP is a simple system that does what it says whether you like it or not.
We have a low voter turnout as it is and you only have to put an X in a box. Can you imagine voting either with numbers of say 1 to 3 for your top 3, or having to vote more than once after the first round has cleared out the lowest voted candidates to then vote again for the remaining candidates.
Or the tactical voting required of the electorate to ensure the candidate you want wins, by choosing carefully your next best candidates to ensure the candidate you did not want does not get elected by default.
As others have said, reform has been debated for years, but will not change so long as FPTP suits those in power. |  |
| |
| First past the post is no longer fit for purpose on 13:19 - Jul 3 with 2524 views | MattinLondon |
| First past the post is no longer fit for purpose on 13:14 - Jul 3 by Help |
FPTP is not and has never been perfect, but then no PR system is either. You only have to look at all the countries that have variations of PR, to see that there is no version of PR that does not itself bring problems. FPTP is a simple system that does what it says whether you like it or not.
We have a low voter turnout as it is and you only have to put an X in a box. Can you imagine voting either with numbers of say 1 to 3 for your top 3, or having to vote more than once after the first round has cleared out the lowest voted candidates to then vote again for the remaining candidates.
Or the tactical voting required of the electorate to ensure the candidate you want wins, by choosing carefully your next best candidates to ensure the candidate you did not want does not get elected by default.
As others have said, reform has been debated for years, but will not change so long as FPTP suits those in power. |
The flip side to your second paragraph is that some form of PR might actually encourage more to vote as their vote might actually count.
If you live in a constituency that is heavily one sided, what’s the point in voting for someone else. |  | | |
| First past the post is no longer fit for purpose on 13:24 - Jul 3 with 2500 views | Freddies_Ears |
| First past the post is no longer fit for purpose on 13:19 - Jul 3 by MattinLondon |
The flip side to your second paragraph is that some form of PR might actually encourage more to vote as their vote might actually count.
If you live in a constituency that is heavily one sided, what’s the point in voting for someone else. |
I have voted for over 40 years. In general elections, I have never had my vote count.
Still, if FPTP is good enough for Belarus.... | | | |
| First past the post is no longer fit for purpose on 13:28 - Jul 3 with 2477 views | vilanovablue |
There is a reasonable argument that PR can also cause governmental paralysis, I think Belgium recently went 2 years with no PM. I'd also say that there is a reasonable argument that PR has given extremists too much power which FPTP prevents. I am torn between both as can see reasonable arguments for either system. |  | | |
| First past the post is no longer fit for purpose on 13:31 - Jul 3 with 2471 views | Help |
| First past the post is no longer fit for purpose on 13:19 - Jul 3 by MattinLondon |
The flip side to your second paragraph is that some form of PR might actually encourage more to vote as their vote might actually count.
If you live in a constituency that is heavily one sided, what’s the point in voting for someone else. |
I think it has more to do with voter apathy and political interest. Some people will never engage in politics even though it is the major factor that affects their lives. Lack of understanding?. The current lack of interest from the public does not surprise me with the amount of sleaze and lies and falsehoods, is it no wonder people say, why because it is the same whichever part gets in. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
