Forum | First past the post is no longer fit for purpose by GlasgowBlue

Forum index | Previous Thread | Next thread

First past the post is no longer fit for purpose 10:17 - Jul 3 with 5388 views

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.

	Hey now, hey now, don't dream it's over
Poll:	What will be announced first?
Blog:	[Blog] For the Sake of My Football Club, Please Go

First past the post is no longer fit for purpose on 14:03 - Jul 3 with 1390 views

Freddies_Ears

First past the post is no longer fit for purpose on 13:28 - Jul 3 by 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.

An election where over 20% of voters are putting their X against a candidate they don't prefer is barely valid, but that's what FPTP gives us.
PR pretty much guarantees coalition govt, but that suits me fine - take the key bits of each of the partners' programmes and deliver them. That way most voters actually get something they voted for.

First past the post is no longer fit for purpose on 14:37 - Jul 3 with 1362 views

MidlandBlue25

Yep, but Labour will not want to change it as it guarantees them a large majority for the foreseeable future

First past the post is no longer fit for purpose on 16:18 - Jul 3 with 1315 views

NeedhamChris

First past the post is no longer fit for purpose on 10:22 - Jul 3 by _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.

They deserve that level of representation tbf

	Winner of the "most obvious troll ever seen on here" award, sponsored by _Clive_Baker
Poll:	If McKenna had gone to Brighton - do you think we'd have had...

First past the post is no longer fit for purpose on 16:57 - Jul 3 with 1279 views

Clapham_Junction

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.

This kind of comment shows how poorly understood PR is. PR is typically done using constituencies (only a handful of countries have the whole country as a single constituency) - a county like Suffolk with seven MPs would not be an unusual size for a PR constituency.

Open list PR - the most common form - also allows you to vote for specific people on each party's list, meaning you can choose to vote for someone from a party because they are viewed as being more local.

First past the post is no longer fit for purpose on 17:03 - Jul 3 with 1248 views

Clapham_Junction

First past the post is no longer fit for purpose on 13:28 - Jul 3 by 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.

Belgium's paralysis is not really to do with PR - it's because of the unique nature of Belgian politics which is split between Flemish and Walloon parties. FPTP would arguably make things worse as the Flemish nationalist parties would likely win the vast majority of seats in Flanders and there would not be a Walloon party willing to work with them. At least with PR non-nationalist parties from each side of the ethnic divide win enough seats to form governments.

PR helping extremists is also dubious. France does not have PR but has one of the strongest far-right parties in Europe.

First past the post is no longer fit for purpose on 17:08 - Jul 3 with 1238 views

Pinewoodblue

First past the post is no longer fit for purpose on 16:57 - Jul 3 by Clapham_Junction

Reduce number of Constituencies and continue with FPTP, but also elect, on a regional basis further MPs on a PR basis.

Will give second level parties fairer representation but also keep number of fringe parties in check.

Turn HoL into an elected chamber.

	2023 year of destiny
Poll:	Dickhead "Noun" a stupid, irritating, or ridiculous man.

First past the post is no longer fit for purpose on 17:13 - Jul 3 with 1220 views

Clapham_Junction

First past the post is no longer fit for purpose on 17:08 - Jul 3 by Pinewoodblue
Reduce number of Constituencies and continue with FPTP, but also elect, on a regional basis further MPs on a PR basis. Will give second level parties fairer representation but also keep number of fringe parties in check. Turn HoL into an elected chamber.

I don't think a hybrid system would work well. MPs representing constituencies would likely be the ones who end up getting most of the casework (which would also be much larger than at present as constituencies would have to increase in size) while those elected via PR would not get the same level as casework.

First past the post is no longer fit for purpose on 17:18 - Jul 3 with 1199 views

GeoffSentence

First past the post is no longer fit for purpose on 12:25 - Jul 3 by Kentish_Tractor

The local representation argument is a bit of a fantasy. Firstly, at a general election people are actually voting for how they want the country to be run and which party they want to run the country, rather than who they want to represent them locally.

Secondly, representation at national level is bad enough, what did share of the vote did the conservatives get last time, something like 40% and ended up with 56% of the seats, but at local level it is even worse. Few seats end up with a representative picked by a majority and often the minority that wins is really small. For instance one of the Belfast seats ended up with an MP who won something like 25% of the votes. That was the most extreme case, but in most cases most people do not pick their representative because FPTP is not fit for doing that in a multi-party system.

	Don't boil a kettle on a boat.
Poll:	The best Williams to play for Town

First past the post is no longer fit for purpose on 17:47 - Jul 3 with 1160 views

DJR

First past the post is no longer fit for purpose on 17:18 - Jul 3 by GeoffSentence

I posted this elsewhere but should have posted it here.

Sky News You Gov poll predicting the largest majority ever on the strength of 39% of the vote.

First past the post is no longer fit for purpose on 17:58 - Jul 3 with 1136 views

BABLUE

Says Tory boy about to watch his corrupt mob kicked out hopefully for at least a decade.

You haven’t been beefing about it during their 14 years of misrule though.

First past the post is no longer fit for purpose on 18:07 - Jul 3 with 1120 views

bluelagos

First past the post is no longer fit for purpose on 17:58 - Jul 3 by BABLUE
Says Tory boy about to watch his corrupt mob kicked out hopefully for at least a decade. You haven’t been beefing about it during their 14 years of misrule though.

tbf - Glassers fell out with the Tories when they got in bed with the DUP.

What is more interesting though is how the Tories seem to have given up - both in public (The MPs) but also on here. Usually there are posters arguing the toss (Which is kind of what democracy is) - but they seem to have literally given up even trying.

Have seen just 1 Tory poster when I live - way down on previous elections

Poll:

This new lockdown poll - what you reckon?

First past the post is no longer fit for purpose on 18:20 - Jul 3 with 1090 views

Pinewoodblue

First past the post is no longer fit for purpose on 17:13 - Jul 3 by Clapham_Junction
I don't think a hybrid system would work well. MPs representing constituencies would likely be the ones who end up getting most of the casework (which would also be much larger than at present as constituencies would have to increase in size) while those elected via PR would not get the same level as casework.

Not sure about that. Think people would approach the MP who represents the party they support.

	2023 year of destiny
Poll:	Dickhead "Noun" a stupid, irritating, or ridiculous man.

First past the post is no longer fit for purpose on 18:30 - Jul 3 with 1070 views

ElephantintheRoom

It was never fit for purpose. Having minority governments is never a recipe for a happy nation

Be interesting to see, IF the polls prove correct, if the Lib Dems still believe in proportional representation if they get 15 x more seats than Reform with fewer votes

Blog:

The Swinging Sixty

First past the post is no longer fit for purpose on 18:33 - Jul 3 with 1065 views

ArnoldMoorhen

For the first time in history the right wing vote is being properly split two ways, and suddenly you say that First Past the Post is no longer fit for purpose!

The soft Left to Left vote has been split multiple ways for years. No peep from you then!

First past the post is no longer fit for purpose on 18:36 - Jul 3 with 1054 views

Clapham_Junction

First past the post is no longer fit for purpose on 18:20 - Jul 3 by Pinewoodblue
Not sure about that. Think people would approach the MP who represents the party they support.

If that's the case, then there's no need for the separate constituency MP.

But I do agree that is one of the benefits of a multi-member constituency - a much increased likelihood of having an MP representing the area that you think you can approach.

First past the post is no longer fit for purpose on 18:37 - Jul 3 with 1052 views

Mullet

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.

Yep. The hypocrisy of Tories saying Starmer will bring it in to “game the system” when they’ve done that for decades is hilarious.

I hope he does bring it in and we see more of the peripheral voices like the Greens et al getting a say.

Poll:	Which itfc kit do you usually buy
Blog:	When the Fanzine Comes Around

First past the post is no longer fit for purpose on 18:38 - Jul 3 with 1052 views

ArnoldMoorhen

First past the post is no longer fit for purpose on 12:25 - Jul 3 by Kentish_Tractor

The system you describe sounds similar to the system used for the Scottish Parliament.

It is vastly superior to FPTP.

https://www.parliament.scot/msps/about-msps/how-msps-are-elected

First past the post is no longer fit for purpose on 18:44 - Jul 3 with 1044 views

GlasgowBlue

First past the post is no longer fit for purpose on 17:58 - Jul 3 by BABLUE
Says Tory boy about to watch his corrupt mob kicked out hopefully for at least a decade. You haven’t been beefing about it during their 14 years of misrule though.

Resigned from the Tory party in 2017 because of their deal the the DUP. Have advocated proportional representation ever since i've been posting on here.

You silly Billy.

	Hey now, hey now, don't dream it's over
Poll:	What will be announced first?
Blog:	[Blog] For the Sake of My Football Club, Please Go

First past the post is no longer fit for purpose on 18:44 - Jul 3 with 1039 views

ArnoldMoorhen

First past the post is no longer fit for purpose on 12:40 - Jul 3 by bluelagos
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.

The converse of this is that under FPTP Ministers have to run departments, sit on Cabinet Meetings and Committees, lead debates and vote in Parliament and manage Constituency workloads.

In practice they have Parliamentary Private Secretaries, other MPs given a status above other Backbenchers but below Junior Ministers, who manage a lot of their Constituency caseload. But the Prime Minister chooses the PPS (with input from the Minister) not the Constituents.

The Scottish Parliament top up system creates Regional List MSPs: they can assist Scottish Government Ministers with their constituency caseload, and have at least been elected as Regional Representatives.

First past the post is no longer fit for purpose on 18:54 - Jul 3 with 1004 views

RadioOrwell

When was it fit for purpose ?

First past the post is no longer fit for purpose on 18:54 - Jul 3 with 1002 views

RadioOrwell

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 don't think we have extremist nut jobs in Parliament ?

First past the post is no longer fit for purpose on 18:59 - Jul 3 with 990 views

ArnoldMoorhen

First past the post is no longer fit for purpose on 17:13 - Jul 3 by Clapham_Junction
I don't think a hybrid system would work well. MPs representing constituencies would likely be the ones who end up getting most of the casework (which would also be much larger than at present as constituencies would have to increase in size) while those elected via PR would not get the same level as casework.

It works fine for the Scottish Parliament. See my answer re Ministers Constituency casework being dealt with by PPS at Westminster. In Scotland regional list MSPs can take up this casework.

First past the post is no longer fit for purpose on 19:16 - Jul 3 with 960 views

GlasgowBlue

First past the post is no longer fit for purpose on 18:33 - Jul 3 by ArnoldMoorhen
For the first time in history the right wing vote is being properly split two ways, and suddenly you say that First Past the Post is no longer fit for purpose! The soft Left to Left vote has been split multiple ways for years. No peep from you then!

Yawn. I've been in favour of PR for over twenty years and state this everytime the issue is discussed on here.

I've also advocated for some time that our two monolithic parties should split into several more European style parties so that everyone's views are represented when they vote.

For so called intelligent chap you seem only capable of reading what is in your head and not what is on the board.

edit. Just had a quick look and you even replied to one of my recent posts on here advocating PR. Bizzare.

[Post edited 3 Jul 2024 19:29]

	Hey now, hey now, don't dream it's over
Poll:	What will be announced first?
Blog:	[Blog] For the Sake of My Football Club, Please Go

First past the post is no longer fit for purpose on 19:26 - Jul 3 with 914 views

NeedhamChris

First past the post is no longer fit for purpose on 18:33 - Jul 3 by ArnoldMoorhen
For the first time in history the right wing vote is being properly split two ways, and suddenly you say that First Past the Post is no longer fit for purpose! The soft Left to Left vote has been split multiple ways for years. No peep from you then!

I'm pretty sure GB has been one of the few not on the left who has agreed and advocated for PR even when it wouldn't have suited.

Needs to be some grown up debate here without the football style tribalism. PR of some form was the right answer when the Greens and Lib Dems would have been the main beneficiaries and it's still the right answer even though right now it would benefit Reform.

	Winner of the "most obvious troll ever seen on here" award, sponsored by _Clive_Baker
Poll:	If McKenna had gone to Brighton - do you think we'd have had...

First past the post is no longer fit for purpose on 19:32 - Jul 3 with 872 views

GlasgowBlue

First past the post is no longer fit for purpose on 19:26 - Jul 3 by NeedhamChris
I'm pretty sure GB has been one of the few not on the left who has agreed and advocated for PR even when it wouldn't have suited. Needs to be some grown up debate here without the football style tribalism. PR of some form was the right answer when the Greens and Lib Dems would have been the main beneficiaries and it's still the right answer even though right now it would benefit Reform.

I think I may have to expand my div list of people are going to deliberately engage in bad faith.

	Hey now, hey now, don't dream it's over
Poll:	What will be announced first?
Blog:	[Blog] For the Sake of My Football Club, Please Go

Forum index | Previous Thread | Next thread