I wonder what proportion of voters in democracy globally vote under FPTP and what under PR. I certainly believe FPTP is the norm for the overwhelming majority of voters but PR supporters always seem to make out like we are the exception not the norm.
I can only imagine it's due to little Europeanism and not thinking globally.
Well, India, the United States, Canada, Australia, and the UK all use FPTP. That must be a big chunk of the world’s voters in actually democratic states, ignoring places like Zimbabwe and China. Bangladesh does as well but I’m dubious about calling them ‘democratic’ at the moment.
However, most European countries use PR, as do Indonesia and Brazil, which means there is considerable weight on the other side too.
Interestingly, Japan’s system is mixed so about half of their MPs are FPTP and half from PR.
Edit - in the other US Pacific former colony, they also have a hybrid system, but there it’s 80/20 in favour of FPTP. Taiwan and South Korea have a similar system.
The really telling point is the leverage the UK has deployed to introduce PR into locations under its jurisdiction such as Northern Ireland or former West Germany. Somehow we were able to see that imposing our own corrupt voting system in such places would obviously be counter productive.
Well, it should be remembered in that context that the decision to introduce PR in Germany in 1919 was a vast, epochal mistake.
Why? It denied Hitler power, which he had to force his way by means other than securing a majority. In all probability FPTP would have delivered him majority power without needing to go below and behind.
He got 18.25% of the vote in 1930. Whether he'd got that much under FPTP is hard to say, but I doubt he'd have got more than that.
He got 37.3% of the vote in July 1932 which, given the SPD came second on 21.6%, would have given Hitler a landslide under FPTP.
But to go from 2% to 37% under FPTP is very difficult, that's the point.
Why is it easier under PR?
Because you can be more sure that your vote won't be wasted (yes, I know that's an argument against FPTP).
When Ukip got 13% in 2015 it was a sign that a fair few people really couldn't care which of Cameron or Miliband was PM. Most would have known that their vote wouldn't come close to getting them their choice of MP.
At the top, I make it both Man Utd and Chelsea are home and hosed for a top four place with a draw. Leicester need a win, unless Wolves beat Chelsea in which case a draw will also suffice for them.
At the bottom, Villa survive with any win unless Watford beat Arsenal by at least two goals more than Villa beat West Ham. Failing that, there are various other possible outcomes to the Watford-Villa duel. Bournemouth survive only if they beat Everton and both Villa and Watford lose.
Told all you boing boing Baggies Baggies you had nothing to worry about.
They made heavy weather of it. I told you earlier following the Albion was hard work. Thankyou Barnsley, thankyou Wigan!
I'm absolutely gutted for Wigan, something smells very bad about that administration.
It could get very messy. If Wigan lose the appeal they would seem to have a case against the EFL for allowing the change of ownership to someone without the funds. (At the most charitable interpretation). If they win then Barnsley have a case too. Either way, neither can prepare properly not knowing which division they are in. Also. Fixtures for next season are looming. Whatever happened with Bury? EFL is a shambles.
The whole fit and proper test is an utter shambles.
As a Manchester United supporting friend pointed out it took around three years for Hicks & Gillette to take Liverpool from a Champions league final to the brink of administration.
If that can happen to a club like Liverpool then it can to anyone.
Its remarkable to think the turnaround in the last decade under FSG compared to what was happening under Hicks & Gillette.
I wonder what proportion of voters in democracy globally vote under FPTP and what under PR. I certainly believe FPTP is the norm for the overwhelming majority of voters but PR supporters always seem to make out like we are the exception not the norm.
I can only imagine it's due to little Europeanism and not thinking globally.
Well, India, the United States, Canada, Australia, and the UK all use FPTP. That must be a big chunk of the world’s voters in actually democratic states, ignoring places like Zimbabwe and China. Bangladesh does as well but I’m dubious about calling them ‘democratic’ at the moment.
However, most European countries use PR, as do Indonesia and Brazil, which means there is considerable weight on the other side too.
Interestingly, Japan’s system is mixed so about half of their MPs are FPTP and half from PR.
Edit - in the other US Pacific former colony, they also have a hybrid system, but there it’s 80/20 in favour of FPTP. Taiwan and South Korea have a similar system.
The really telling point is the leverage the UK has deployed to introduce PR into locations under its jurisdiction such as Northern Ireland or former West Germany. Somehow we were able to see that imposing our own corrupt voting system in such places would obviously be counter productive.
response to trying local circumstances.
The Weimar Republic had a PR voting system IIRC, which didn't stop Hitler (mind you, nor would FPTP have stopped him).
Yes it would. The SPD would have locked out power for ten years and then been replaced by the Centre party. You wouldn’t have had the mess of chaos and instability that allowed both the President to rule by decree and later, Hitler to first flourish and then be appointed in a stitch-up coalition.
PR was a huge factor in the failure of Weimar, as it was in the failure of Italian democracy.
The Zentrum was an exclusively Catholic Party and would never have been able to extend support beyond its consistent and and unchanging electoral base of around 12% of the vote and 70 or so Deputies in the Weimar Reichstag. And it was the Zentrum's Heinrich Bruening as Chancellor who relied on (Presidential) Article 48 decrees to pass legislation.
The Nazis would certainly have been a close second place in seats in 1930 (far more than the 107 they actually won with PR) under FPTP and definitely a clear overall majority in the first 1932 election.
But the vote would not have been nearly as splintered in 1930 as it was had FPTP been used. Breaking through in FPTP is very hard.
But German politics was always highly fragmented. The pre1918 Reichstag was elected by FPTP (on a wide male suffrage) and no party ever came close to a majority.
Comments
When Ukip got 13% in 2015 it was a sign that a fair few people really couldn't care which of Cameron or Miliband was PM. Most would have known that their vote wouldn't come close to getting them their choice of MP.
At the bottom, Villa survive with any win unless Watford beat Arsenal by at least two goals more than Villa beat West Ham. Failing that, there are various other possible outcomes to the Watford-Villa duel. Bournemouth survive only if they beat Everton and both Villa and Watford lose.
NEW THREAD
https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2020/jul/22/psychological-toll-coronavirus-britain-visual-guide-anxiety-mental-strain