Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

The government is right to junk Supplementary Vote – it’s the worst of all worlds – politicalbetting

12346

Comments

  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 17,438

    kinabalu said:

    Floater said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Breaking news:

    Welsh supermarket shoppers can now buy Barbara Cartland novels.

    A nation rejoices .... or not
    Heard Drakeford speaking the other day. Very impressed with his nuanced and intelligent use of language.
    Drakeford is universally disliked. He closed the pubs (as a teetotaller himself) whilst Johnson (and the Conservatives) invented, procured and vaccinated the population. Very much the view on the ground. May is going to see Tories with most seats.
    Another example of "everyone thinks like my circle", not supported by the polls. Are you putting your money on it? You can get good odds!
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,445

    @Endillion and @Philip_Thompson thought experiment time.

    Let's say under FPTP 650 independent MPs are elected to Parliament.

    Who is the "winner" of that election?

    Well eventually a loose confederation of proto-parties would form. It would have to happen as government is formed from it.
    Well obviously.

    My point is that FPTP works great in a locally orientated election of representatives to a legislature.

    It breaks down when a vast majority of people simply vote on national politics for parties.

    Then you don't get 650 winners. You get 1 winner on 30% of the vote.
    No you don't. You still have 650 MPs. That a majority of locations have chosen MPs of the same party is simply their choice, it could have gone otherwise.
    And yet you still can have 1 winner on 30% of the vote.

    Regardless of how you try and spin it, the ultimate result is that a party with a minority of voters supporting them is proclaimed the "winner" and not just a "winner", usually with complete control.

    That may be worth it for the benefits of "strong" government and the ability to "kick out the party in charge", etc but it's still a fact.
    You don't have 1 winner. You have 650 winners. Every MP counts and the government only gets its bills through if it commands a majority of the house.
    I'm sorry but that's idealised bullsh*t and you know it.
    No it is not. Look at the 2017 Parliament. Heck if over 40 Tory MPs rebel on an issue in this Parliament then votes can be lost even in this Parliament.

    Votes are only won in the House if a majority of the 650 elected MPs vote Aye. MPs can vote however they want, whenever they want, if they're prepared to own the consequences of that.
    There's no point discussing this with you because you're living in your fantasy world where every voter rationally votes for a nice local resident to represent them in Westminster who then votes as they wish.

    However in reality most voters vote for the party they least dislike out of the Conservatives and Labour, who then vote as they are told with most not even attending debates.

    In theory FPTP is great. In reality it produces "winners" with minority vote shares. Like I said, maybe the benefits outweigh the negatives but the negatives are there.
    I haven't stepped into discussing how voters or MPs choose to vote.

    However if you must ask then I will say this: it is up to them.

    Every voter in every constituency gets 1 vote. They can vote for whoever they want to vote for, for whatever reasons they want to vote for (within the law).

    If voters are unhappy with their local MP they can hold them to account and vote to get rid of them. If they like their local MP they can vote to keep them. If they want to vote on national issues they can do so. It is their choice, not yours and not mine.
    I have lost count of the number of national elections I have voted in (i am now 60) and never once have I voted for the winner. Now you may say that that's my own fault for not voting Tory or Labour, but that's beside the point. If I am unhappy with my MP I do have the option to write to him/her and then receive a general policy statement from that party. At the next election I have the same choice which usually results in no change. There must be many millions of voters in this country who never vote for the winner. It is hardly conducive to encouraging participation.
    Is that a bad thing?

    It just means your neighbours in your constituency don't agree with you. That's fair enough.

    If your side manages to win the argument then whoever you're voting for can be elected, there's nothing to stop that from happening.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 65,124
    edited March 22

    kinabalu said:

    Floater said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Breaking news:

    Welsh supermarket shoppers can now buy Barbara Cartland novels.

    A nation rejoices .... or not
    Heard Drakeford speaking the other day. Very impressed with his nuanced and intelligent use of language.
    Drakeford is universally disliked. He closed the pubs (as a teetotaller himself) whilst Johnson (and the Conservatives) invented, procured and vaccinated the population. Very much the view on the ground. May is going to see Tories with most seats.
    Another example of "everyone thinks like my circle", not supported by the polls. Are you putting your money on it? You can get good odds!
    MexicanPete is obviously joking.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 16,883
    Andy_JS said:

    I favour STV but I don't *hate* first past the post. What I do hate is zealots pretending there are literally no downsides to it and that it's the most perfect electoral system ever created.

    The only good thing about FPTP is the drama it provides on election night. Otherwise it's a rubbish system that means an MP can be elected with 26% of the vote, as in Inverness in 1992.
    Ah but that 26% is an undeniable mandate of representation.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,445
    Endillion said:

    Endillion said:

    Endillion said:

    @Endillion and @Philip_Thompson thought experiment time.

    Let's say under FPTP 650 independent MPs are elected to Parliament.

    Who is the "winner" of that election?

    Well eventually a loose confederation of proto-parties would form. It would have to happen as government is formed from it.
    Well obviously.

    My point is that FPTP works great in a locally orientated election of representatives to a legislature.

    It breaks down when a vast majority of people simply vote on national politics for parties.

    Then you don't get 650 winners. You get 1 winner on 30% of the vote.
    No you don't. You still have 650 MPs. That a majority of locations have chosen MPs of the same party is simply their choice, it could have gone otherwise.
    And yet you still can have 1 winner on 30% of the vote.

    Regardless of how you try and spin it, the ultimate result is that a party with a minority of voters supporting them is proclaimed the "winner" and not just a "winner", usually with complete control.

    That may be worth it for the benefits of "strong" government and the ability to "kick out the party in charge", etc but it's still a fact.
    You don't have 1 winner. You have 650 winners. Every MP counts and the government only gets its bills through if it commands a majority of the house.
    I'm sorry but that's idealised bullsh*t and you know it.
    No it is not. Look at the 2017 Parliament. Heck if over 40 Tory MPs rebel on an issue in this Parliament then votes can be lost even in this Parliament.

    Votes are only won in the House if a majority of the 650 elected MPs vote Aye. MPs can vote however they want, whenever they want, if they're prepared to own the consequences of that.
    This would only be true if there was some relationship between the views of each electorate, and the voting patterns of the MP they send to Parliament. While there might be in theory, in practice the MPs can basically do what they want 98% of the time.
    And they answer to their electorate for doing so.

    If the MP does a bad job then at the next election the voters can pick a new representative to replace them.
    Oh, stop it. I'm nominally on your side in this and you're making it impossible to agree with you. You know as well as the rest of us that it doesn't work that way, most of the time.
    I said can, not will.

    The reality is most MPs don't do an especially bad job representing their MPs precisely because they want to hold their seat. Is life perfect? No, of course not - but the voters have both the option to vote for someone else and the threat of having the option to vote for someone else to keep their MPs in line - that is why democracy works over non-democratic systems.
    I'm unclear who you think on here is advocating for "non-democratic systems", but if that's what you think is the alternative, it explains a few things.
    STV etc is less democratic in my opinion by ensuring the second and third choice get elected too for a constituency. In FPTP the only way to stay in Parliament is to remain the most popular candidate in your constituency, under STV being one of the primary candidates it doesn't matter if you finish first, second or third.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 16,883

    @Endillion and @Philip_Thompson thought experiment time.

    Let's say under FPTP 650 independent MPs are elected to Parliament.

    Who is the "winner" of that election?

    Well eventually a loose confederation of proto-parties would form. It would have to happen as government is formed from it.
    Well obviously.

    My point is that FPTP works great in a locally orientated election of representatives to a legislature.

    It breaks down when a vast majority of people simply vote on national politics for parties.

    Then you don't get 650 winners. You get 1 winner on 30% of the vote.
    No you don't. You still have 650 MPs. That a majority of locations have chosen MPs of the same party is simply their choice, it could have gone otherwise.
    And yet you still can have 1 winner on 30% of the vote.

    Regardless of how you try and spin it, the ultimate result is that a party with a minority of voters supporting them is proclaimed the "winner" and not just a "winner", usually with complete control.

    That may be worth it for the benefits of "strong" government and the ability to "kick out the party in charge", etc but it's still a fact.
    You don't have 1 winner. You have 650 winners. Every MP counts and the government only gets its bills through if it commands a majority of the house.
    I'm sorry but that's idealised bullsh*t and you know it.
    No it is not. Look at the 2017 Parliament. Heck if over 40 Tory MPs rebel on an issue in this Parliament then votes can be lost even in this Parliament.

    Votes are only won in the House if a majority of the 650 elected MPs vote Aye. MPs can vote however they want, whenever they want, if they're prepared to own the consequences of that.
    There's no point discussing this with you because you're living in your fantasy world where every voter rationally votes for a nice local resident to represent them in Westminster who then votes as they wish.

    However in reality most voters vote for the party they least dislike out of the Conservatives and Labour, who then vote as they are told with most not even attending debates.

    In theory FPTP is great. In reality it produces "winners" with minority vote shares. Like I said, maybe the benefits outweigh the negatives but the negatives are there.
    I haven't stepped into discussing how voters or MPs choose to vote.

    However if you must ask then I will say this: it is up to them.

    Every voter in every constituency gets 1 vote. They can vote for whoever they want to vote for, for whatever reasons they want to vote for (within the law).

    If voters are unhappy with their local MP they can hold them to account and vote to get rid of them. If they like their local MP they can vote to keep them. If they want to vote on national issues they can do so. It is their choice, not yours and not mine.
    I have lost count of the number of national elections I have voted in (i am now 60) and never once have I voted for the winner. Now you may say that that's my own fault for not voting Tory or Labour, but that's beside the point. If I am unhappy with my MP I do have the option to write to him/her and then receive a general policy statement from that party. At the next election I have the same choice which usually results in no change. There must be many millions of voters in this country who never vote for the winner. It is hardly conducive to encouraging participation.
    Is that a bad thing?

    It just means your neighbours in your constituency don't agree with you. That's fair enough.

    If your side manages to win the argument then whoever you're voting for can be elected, there's nothing to stop that from happening.
    One moment you're talking about "neighbours not agreeing with you" and the next you're talking about "sides winning arguments".

    You're constantly flip-flopping from the national picture of "voting for government" to the theoretical local picture of "electing a nice local MP".
  • kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    IanB2 said:

    algarkirk said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    DavidL said:

    Really not sure I get this argument. Why is a vote "wasted" if I don't choose one of those who get through to the final round but not "wasted" when I vote for someone that loses in FPTP?

    We certainly have more important things to worry about, on that I agree.

    Because your vote is not counted. Literally. You wanted to register a second preference, the system allowed you to do so, and yet it was not counted at all; your voice is missing from the result, not as a consequence of abstention but because of the vaguary and chance of the mechanism and combined vote.

    At least, when you vote for a losing candidate under FPTP, your choice for them (and implicitly, against the winner), is recorded and acts as political mandate for or against the winner, and helps frame actions within the politicians term and future elections.
    Your arguments are getting more and more pitiful.
    Yours are getting more and more evidence-free. You simply make an assertion, mix in some abuse and assume that the natural virtue will shine though.
    To see a Tory try to claim there are no wasted votes when we know the Tories will be round telling voters not to waste their votes on third parties is a level of hypocrisy which I didn't expect from you.
    Voting system and the rhetoric of campaigning are two different subjects. BTW if you assume that voting is a community activity not an individual one the concept of a wasted vote doesn't really mean anything.

    Yes but the Tories know that the system effectively ensures most third party votes are wasted (ex where very geographically concentrated) and explicitly uses that to push voters toward a choice between itself and its favourite opponent.

    To have Herdson sink as low as claiming there are no wasted votes and resorting to specious argument like suggesting those votes somehow influence the mandate, is sickening.

    I can only guess that a lead with such little integrity has been written because its author needs or wants to ingratiate with someone in his party
    Third votes aren't wasted in the UK: They lost.

    There's a difference.
    Try and get football off your brain. Democracy is about representation not winners and losers.
    No, democracy is about winners and losers. The winners become the representatives, the losers don't.

    You can have other means of picking representatives. Like party apparatchiks picking people who are sound and putting them into the legislature, like China does, but that's not democracy.
    I really dislike how you approach this subject. You completely disregard any valid criticism of FPTP and instead revert to ridiculous comparisons with China and other totalitarian regimes.

    Your interpretation of what democracy is not necessary the same as other people's. That doesn't mean they are wrong.
    I wasn't responding to "any valid criticism" though, I was responding to the absurd and ridiculous notion that it is "not about winners and losers".

    Every single voting system in the world is about winners and losers. The concept of winners and losers is a fundamental part of democracy. How you determine who the winner is varies depending upon the system, but the concept of winners and losers is not unique to FPTP it is a fundamental part of democracy itself.

    If the critics of FPTP actually used any "valid criticism" and didn't leap to absurd arguments then it wouldn't be necessary to show why the absurd is absurd.
    No. Stop it. Not "winners and losers". That's football. This is democracy.

    Representation.
    Every citizen of this country is represented in Parliament; but only if they vote for the winner of the election are they represented in government.

    Oddly enough, parties that can win elections prefer to think of democracy as an exercise in the allocation of power; parties that can't see it as a means of representing a range of opinion.

    The former set of parties tend to win the argument de facto, since they are, er, in power and don't need to concern themselves with what the latter think.
    Every voter is represented in Parliament but not every voter is represented proportionately.

    This is the usual triumphalist nonsense from you but I expected nothing less.
    Why should we care about proportionality?
    Why wouldn't you care about proportionality to some extent?

    I can see the argument that proportionality isn't the be all and end all, and that you'd rather sacrifice that to some extent in favour of a stable, functioning government (leaving aside the irony that 2010-15 was a period of very stable government). But it isn't in some way irrelevant whether a party getting, say, 20% of the vote get one MP or around 20% of MPs.

    It's a bit one-eyed to say FPTP has no disadvantages because proportionality doesn't matter at all. That is fairly obviously a drawback of FPTP even if, in your opinion, it's outweighed by other advantages.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 3,869
    edited March 22

    Endillion said:

    Endillion said:

    Endillion said:

    @Endillion and @Philip_Thompson thought experiment time.

    Let's say under FPTP 650 independent MPs are elected to Parliament.

    Who is the "winner" of that election?

    Well eventually a loose confederation of proto-parties would form. It would have to happen as government is formed from it.
    Well obviously.

    My point is that FPTP works great in a locally orientated election of representatives to a legislature.

    It breaks down when a vast majority of people simply vote on national politics for parties.

    Then you don't get 650 winners. You get 1 winner on 30% of the vote.
    No you don't. You still have 650 MPs. That a majority of locations have chosen MPs of the same party is simply their choice, it could have gone otherwise.
    And yet you still can have 1 winner on 30% of the vote.

    Regardless of how you try and spin it, the ultimate result is that a party with a minority of voters supporting them is proclaimed the "winner" and not just a "winner", usually with complete control.

    That may be worth it for the benefits of "strong" government and the ability to "kick out the party in charge", etc but it's still a fact.
    You don't have 1 winner. You have 650 winners. Every MP counts and the government only gets its bills through if it commands a majority of the house.
    I'm sorry but that's idealised bullsh*t and you know it.
    No it is not. Look at the 2017 Parliament. Heck if over 40 Tory MPs rebel on an issue in this Parliament then votes can be lost even in this Parliament.

    Votes are only won in the House if a majority of the 650 elected MPs vote Aye. MPs can vote however they want, whenever they want, if they're prepared to own the consequences of that.
    This would only be true if there was some relationship between the views of each electorate, and the voting patterns of the MP they send to Parliament. While there might be in theory, in practice the MPs can basically do what they want 98% of the time.
    And they answer to their electorate for doing so.

    If the MP does a bad job then at the next election the voters can pick a new representative to replace them.
    Oh, stop it. I'm nominally on your side in this and you're making it impossible to agree with you. You know as well as the rest of us that it doesn't work that way, most of the time.
    I said can, not will.

    The reality is most MPs don't do an especially bad job representing their MPs precisely because they want to hold their seat. Is life perfect? No, of course not - but the voters have both the option to vote for someone else and the threat of having the option to vote for someone else to keep their MPs in line - that is why democracy works over non-democratic systems.
    I'm unclear who you think on here is advocating for "non-democratic systems", but if that's what you think is the alternative, it explains a few things.
    STV etc is less democratic in my opinion by ensuring the second and third choice get elected too for a constituency. In FPTP the only way to stay in Parliament is to remain the most popular candidate in your constituency, under STV being one of the primary candidates it doesn't matter if you finish first, second or third.
    Yes. Again, I'm on your side on this (nominally).

    My point is that there are clearly quite a lot of scenarios where the system doesn't work as it should, and denying that is pointless and makes you (and, by extension, me) sound dumb.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 3,869

    Andy_JS said:

    I favour STV but I don't *hate* first past the post. What I do hate is zealots pretending there are literally no downsides to it and that it's the most perfect electoral system ever created.

    The only good thing about FPTP is the drama it provides on election night. Otherwise it's a rubbish system that means an MP can be elected with 26% of the vote, as in Inverness in 1992.
    Ah but that 26% is an undeniable mandate of representation.
    I think you'll find it's exactly half an undeniable mandate.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,445

    Andy_JS said:

    I favour STV but I don't *hate* first past the post. What I do hate is zealots pretending there are literally no downsides to it and that it's the most perfect electoral system ever created.

    The only good thing about FPTP is the drama it provides on election night. Otherwise it's a rubbish system that means an MP can be elected with 26% of the vote, as in Inverness in 1992.
    Ah but that 26% is an undeniable mandate of representation.
    Since no other candidate got 27% then yes.

    Plus you're making a ridiculously extreme argument based on a ridiculous edge case, not even at the last election . . . but eight General Elections ago. Over 5000 MPs have been elected in that time so you're talking a 0.02% example.

    If you're advocating STV or other voting systems then MPs can be elected on less than 26%, so how is that an improvement? 🤔
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 16,883
    @Philip_Thompson you always ignore situations like this:

    I want to vote for X who's not a Lab or Con candidate but I'm worried if I do my least favourite of Lab or Con will win. I therefore will vote for my favourite out of Lab or Con just in case.

    I'm willing to bet that that thought process is repeated by millions across the country.

    That's not a solid foundation of local representation nor is it a good advertisement for democracy.

    You always pretend that people rationally pick their favourite candidate but that simply isn't the case.

    You then moan that under STV and other systems the person who wasn't the first choice candidate wins and say that isn't democratic but the very same thing happens under FPTP. It's just hidden.

    But of course if it's hidden you can pretend it doesn't exist.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 14,095
    With regards to "your mum", no YOUR mum" argument about the whys and wherefores of FPTP vs whatever, its a question of scale.

    If the electoral horizon is the individual seat, then FPTP works just fine. Most votes wins is absolutely fair - the most popular candidate is elected.

    The problem is that most voters look to a wider horizon. Legally they vote for the named candidate in the named seat, but many choose to vote based on some wider thing they cann't influence such as who runs the country.

    If the electoral horizon is the UK then FPTP is not a good system because of the nature of the election being 650 individual elections. It is fundamentally undemocratic when looked at nationally for a party winning 35% of the vote to win a thumping majority - or a party winning 12% to fail to win a single seat.

    Fans of FPTP point to the single constituency level fairness as a means to justify the national unfairness. Until and unless we plan how to run a national election then we will never square this circle.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 25,477
    Endillion said:

    kinabalu said:

    Endillion said:

    kinabalu said:

    IanB2 said:

    algarkirk said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    DavidL said:

    Really not sure I get this argument. Why is a vote "wasted" if I don't choose one of those who get through to the final round but not "wasted" when I vote for someone that loses in FPTP?

    We certainly have more important things to worry about, on that I agree.

    Because your vote is not counted. Literally. You wanted to register a second preference, the system allowed you to do so, and yet it was not counted at all; your voice is missing from the result, not as a consequence of abstention but because of the vaguary and chance of the mechanism and combined vote.

    At least, when you vote for a losing candidate under FPTP, your choice for them (and implicitly, against the winner), is recorded and acts as political mandate for or against the winner, and helps frame actions within the politicians term and future elections.
    Your arguments are getting more and more pitiful.
    Yours are getting more and more evidence-free. You simply make an assertion, mix in some abuse and assume that the natural virtue will shine though.
    To see a Tory try to claim there are no wasted votes when we know the Tories will be round telling voters not to waste their votes on third parties is a level of hypocrisy which I didn't expect from you.
    Voting system and the rhetoric of campaigning are two different subjects. BTW if you assume that voting is a community activity not an individual one the concept of a wasted vote doesn't really mean anything.

    Yes but the Tories know that the system effectively ensures most third party votes are wasted (ex where very geographically concentrated) and explicitly uses that to push voters toward a choice between itself and its favourite opponent.

    To have Herdson sink as low as claiming there are no wasted votes and resorting to specious argument like suggesting those votes somehow influence the mandate, is sickening.

    I can only guess that a lead with such little integrity has been written because its author needs or wants to ingratiate with someone in his party
    Third votes aren't wasted in the UK: They lost.

    There's a difference.
    Try and get football off your brain. Democracy is about representation not winners and losers.
    This is the difference between political philosophy and how people actually think in a nutshell, and why the former rarely survives contact with reality: most people don't actually derive any satisfaction from having voted for a party to spend five years in pointless opposition. All they know is they lost, and it'll be years before they have another chance to vote for a party that will have a chance of enacting an agenda they care about.
    That's a separate point to the one I'm making - that the voting public should be thought of as being represented not divided into winners and losers. But in any case I don't agree with you that people think as you describe. The real partisans, yes, but most people are not 100% pro one platform and 100% anti the others. So if the party they voted for loses, they don't get too down about it. They shrug and get on with their life.
    I'm not sure that's the case - the EU referendum was an interesting example where millions of people who'd previously been moderates suddenly turned into raving partisans for whichever side they'd eventually come down for, simply because it dominated the news cycle for years afterwards. I would rather say that who's in power in Westminster doesn't actually matter to most people on a day-to-day basis, so it drops out of the front of their minds. In the immediate aftermath, I would expect they'd view "their" party as having "won" or "lost". It's just how people perceive things.

    Anyway, all you're saying is that those people don't care about representation, or about who wins. Which raises the question as to why we should restructure our democracy to better represent them, when clearly most people won't care?
    Binary referendums are rather different. There, the individual voters DO win or lose. There's no way around that. But for general elections this should not be the case. It should be about fair representation not winning or losing. Come GE24, if I vote Labour and the Cons win again, my feeling ought to be, "Shit, Labour have lost again." Or that "we" have lost again (if I'm a member or just quite partisan). But I should not feel that EYE have lost the election. If individual voters feel that, it indicates something amiss with the system. And I imagine people do feel that where the party they vote for gets a big national vote but no seats. They feel they have "lost" because they are not fairly represented. Democracy being about voters being represented (by parties which win and lose) not about voters themselves winning or losing. This is my point.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,445

    @Endillion and @Philip_Thompson thought experiment time.

    Let's say under FPTP 650 independent MPs are elected to Parliament.

    Who is the "winner" of that election?

    Well eventually a loose confederation of proto-parties would form. It would have to happen as government is formed from it.
    Well obviously.

    My point is that FPTP works great in a locally orientated election of representatives to a legislature.

    It breaks down when a vast majority of people simply vote on national politics for parties.

    Then you don't get 650 winners. You get 1 winner on 30% of the vote.
    No you don't. You still have 650 MPs. That a majority of locations have chosen MPs of the same party is simply their choice, it could have gone otherwise.
    And yet you still can have 1 winner on 30% of the vote.

    Regardless of how you try and spin it, the ultimate result is that a party with a minority of voters supporting them is proclaimed the "winner" and not just a "winner", usually with complete control.

    That may be worth it for the benefits of "strong" government and the ability to "kick out the party in charge", etc but it's still a fact.
    You don't have 1 winner. You have 650 winners. Every MP counts and the government only gets its bills through if it commands a majority of the house.
    I'm sorry but that's idealised bullsh*t and you know it.
    No it is not. Look at the 2017 Parliament. Heck if over 40 Tory MPs rebel on an issue in this Parliament then votes can be lost even in this Parliament.

    Votes are only won in the House if a majority of the 650 elected MPs vote Aye. MPs can vote however they want, whenever they want, if they're prepared to own the consequences of that.
    There's no point discussing this with you because you're living in your fantasy world where every voter rationally votes for a nice local resident to represent them in Westminster who then votes as they wish.

    However in reality most voters vote for the party they least dislike out of the Conservatives and Labour, who then vote as they are told with most not even attending debates.

    In theory FPTP is great. In reality it produces "winners" with minority vote shares. Like I said, maybe the benefits outweigh the negatives but the negatives are there.
    I haven't stepped into discussing how voters or MPs choose to vote.

    However if you must ask then I will say this: it is up to them.

    Every voter in every constituency gets 1 vote. They can vote for whoever they want to vote for, for whatever reasons they want to vote for (within the law).

    If voters are unhappy with their local MP they can hold them to account and vote to get rid of them. If they like their local MP they can vote to keep them. If they want to vote on national issues they can do so. It is their choice, not yours and not mine.
    I have lost count of the number of national elections I have voted in (i am now 60) and never once have I voted for the winner. Now you may say that that's my own fault for not voting Tory or Labour, but that's beside the point. If I am unhappy with my MP I do have the option to write to him/her and then receive a general policy statement from that party. At the next election I have the same choice which usually results in no change. There must be many millions of voters in this country who never vote for the winner. It is hardly conducive to encouraging participation.
    Is that a bad thing?

    It just means your neighbours in your constituency don't agree with you. That's fair enough.

    If your side manages to win the argument then whoever you're voting for can be elected, there's nothing to stop that from happening.
    One moment you're talking about "neighbours not agreeing with you" and the next you're talking about "sides winning arguments".

    You're constantly flip-flopping from the national picture of "voting for government" to the theoretical local picture of "electing a nice local MP".
    Your representative is your own MP. You have that. You have your own MP.

    If you want your party to be in government then you need to win the election across the entire country, not just in your town. Under any voting system at all there are MPs in the opposition benches of any Parliament.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 46,315
    Boris talking sense about the EU on Sky just now and retaining the moral high ground

    Who would have thought it just a few short months ago
  • BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 4,556
    edited March 22

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    IanB2 said:

    algarkirk said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    DavidL said:

    Really not sure I get this argument. Why is a vote "wasted" if I don't choose one of those who get through to the final round but not "wasted" when I vote for someone that loses in FPTP?

    We certainly have more important things to worry about, on that I agree.

    Because your vote is not counted. Literally. You wanted to register a second preference, the system allowed you to do so, and yet it was not counted at all; your voice is missing from the result, not as a consequence of abstention but because of the vaguary and chance of the mechanism and combined vote.

    At least, when you vote for a losing candidate under FPTP, your choice for them (and implicitly, against the winner), is recorded and acts as political mandate for or against the winner, and helps frame actions within the politicians term and future elections.
    Your arguments are getting more and more pitiful.
    Yours are getting more and more evidence-free. You simply make an assertion, mix in some abuse and assume that the natural virtue will shine though.
    To see a Tory try to claim there are no wasted votes when we know the Tories will be round telling voters not to waste their votes on third parties is a level of hypocrisy which I didn't expect from you.
    Voting system and the rhetoric of campaigning are two different subjects. BTW if you assume that voting is a community activity not an individual one the concept of a wasted vote doesn't really mean anything.

    Yes but the Tories know that the system effectively ensures most third party votes are wasted (ex where very geographically concentrated) and explicitly uses that to push voters toward a choice between itself and its favourite opponent.

    To have Herdson sink as low as claiming there are no wasted votes and resorting to specious argument like suggesting those votes somehow influence the mandate, is sickening.

    I can only guess that a lead with such little integrity has been written because its author needs or wants to ingratiate with someone in his party
    Third votes aren't wasted in the UK: They lost.

    There's a difference.
    Try and get football off your brain. Democracy is about representation not winners and losers.
    No, democracy is about winners and losers. The winners become the representatives, the losers don't.

    You can have other means of picking representatives. Like party apparatchiks picking people who are sound and putting them into the legislature, like China does, but that's not democracy.
    I really dislike how you approach this subject. You completely disregard any valid criticism of FPTP and instead revert to ridiculous comparisons with China and other totalitarian regimes.

    Your interpretation of what democracy is not necessary the same as other people's. That doesn't mean they are wrong.
    I wasn't responding to "any valid criticism" though, I was responding to the absurd and ridiculous notion that it is "not about winners and losers".

    Every single voting system in the world is about winners and losers. The concept of winners and losers is a fundamental part of democracy. How you determine who the winner is varies depending upon the system, but the concept of winners and losers is not unique to FPTP it is a fundamental part of democracy itself.

    If the critics of FPTP actually used any "valid criticism" and didn't leap to absurd arguments then it wouldn't be necessary to show why the absurd is absurd.
    No. Stop it. Not "winners and losers". That's football. This is democracy.

    Representation.
    Every citizen of this country is represented in Parliament; but only if they vote for the winner of the election are they represented in government.

    Oddly enough, parties that can win elections prefer to think of democracy as an exercise in the allocation of power; parties that can't see it as a means of representing a range of opinion.

    The former set of parties tend to win the argument de facto, since they are, er, in power and don't need to concern themselves with what the latter think.
    Every voter is represented in Parliament but not every voter is represented proportionately.

    This is the usual triumphalist nonsense from you but I expected nothing less.
    How on Earth could every voter ever be 'represented proportionately' under any system? In 1945, one party wanted the NHS as we know it, the others didn't. Should the Attlee Government have created a public-private partnership? In the referendum of 1975, GE1983, and the referendum of 2016, the losing side in a question of EU membership still got a substantial proportion of the vote. Should we have only partially joined in 1975, partially left in 1983, and left only a tiny bit in 2016? The practical implementation of that ideal would be a recipe for incoherent outcomes that no one wanted in the first place.

    No, democracy is about deciding which path you take at the crossroads, not setting you off on some meaningless bearing through the wilderness that represents a mere gross average of opinion.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 16,883

    Andy_JS said:

    I favour STV but I don't *hate* first past the post. What I do hate is zealots pretending there are literally no downsides to it and that it's the most perfect electoral system ever created.

    The only good thing about FPTP is the drama it provides on election night. Otherwise it's a rubbish system that means an MP can be elected with 26% of the vote, as in Inverness in 1992.
    Ah but that 26% is an undeniable mandate of representation.
    Since no other candidate got 27% then yes.

    Plus you're making a ridiculously extreme argument based on a ridiculous edge case, not even at the last election . . . but eight General Elections ago. Over 5000 MPs have been elected in that time so you're talking a 0.02% example.

    If you're advocating STV or other voting systems then MPs can be elected on less than 26%, so how is that an improvement? 🤔
    Focusing on the macro not the micro, STV ensures a more proportionate legislature whilst retaining a constituency link. It also gives you choice in your local representative so if I don't like the Con representative for my area I can reach out to the Lab one to help solve my problem.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 16,883

    No, democracy is about deciding which path you take at the crossroads, not setting you off on some meaningless bearing that represents a mere gross average of opinion.

    That's the problem. You're viewing a GE as a quasi-referendum on the direction of the country and not a procedure to elect a legislature.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,445

    @Philip_Thompson you always ignore situations like this:

    I want to vote for X who's not a Lab or Con candidate but I'm worried if I do my least favourite of Lab or Con will win. I therefore will vote for my favourite out of Lab or Con just in case.

    I'm willing to bet that that thought process is repeated by millions across the country.

    That's not a solid foundation of local representation nor is it a good advertisement for democracy.

    You always pretend that people rationally pick their favourite candidate but that simply isn't the case.

    You then moan that under STV and other systems the person who wasn't the first choice candidate wins and say that isn't democratic but the very same thing happens under FPTP. It's just hidden.

    But of course if it's hidden you can pretend it doesn't exist.

    Why is that not a solid foundation of local representation? Why is it not a good advertisement for democracy?

    If you're thinking through these issues then you are weighing up the pros and cons of issues and choices in your own mind. Then voting for your preferred candidate, after having filtered it through all the issues you choose to weigh up.

    That's a good thing not a bad thing. If millions of people are thinking through the consequences of their votes that's a plus for democracy not a negative.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 44,609
    Andy_JS said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Floater said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Breaking news:

    Welsh supermarket shoppers can now buy Barbara Cartland novels.

    A nation rejoices .... or not
    Heard Drakeford speaking the other day. Very impressed with his nuanced and intelligent use of language.
    Drakeford is universally disliked. He closed the pubs (as a teetotaller himself) whilst Johnson (and the Conservatives) invented, procured and vaccinated the population. Very much the view on the ground. May is going to see Tories with most seats.
    He's a teetotaller? Never knew that. Makes a lot of sense

    There is a puritan edge to governance in Wales. Puritanism, as in: "the haunting fear that someone, somewhere may be happy"
    It's amazing how long-lasting culture is. You go to Massachusetts and everyone there thinks of themselves as incredibly modern, but as a British person you can feel the puritanism in the air almost from the moment you step into the airport.

    The fact that 20 year olds aren't allowed to drink beer, and so on.
    I once went into a bar in the depths of New England. There was a sign saying only two drinks would be served to each customer.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 16,883

    @Philip_Thompson you always ignore situations like this:

    I want to vote for X who's not a Lab or Con candidate but I'm worried if I do my least favourite of Lab or Con will win. I therefore will vote for my favourite out of Lab or Con just in case.

    I'm willing to bet that that thought process is repeated by millions across the country.

    That's not a solid foundation of local representation nor is it a good advertisement for democracy.

    You always pretend that people rationally pick their favourite candidate but that simply isn't the case.

    You then moan that under STV and other systems the person who wasn't the first choice candidate wins and say that isn't democratic but the very same thing happens under FPTP. It's just hidden.

    But of course if it's hidden you can pretend it doesn't exist.

    Why is that not a solid foundation of local representation? Why is it not a good advertisement for democracy?

    If you're thinking through these issues then you are weighing up the pros and cons of issues and choices in your own mind. Then voting for your preferred candidate, after having filtered it through all the issues you choose to weigh up.

    That's a good thing not a bad thing. If millions of people are thinking through the consequences of their votes that's a plus for democracy not a negative.
    You've completely missed the point of course.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 65,124

    Boris talking sense about the EU on Sky just now and retaining the moral high ground

    Who would have thought it just a few short months ago

    Leon will be disappointed we aren't carpet bombing Europe....
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,445

    @Philip_Thompson you always ignore situations like this:

    I want to vote for X who's not a Lab or Con candidate but I'm worried if I do my least favourite of Lab or Con will win. I therefore will vote for my favourite out of Lab or Con just in case.

    I'm willing to bet that that thought process is repeated by millions across the country.

    That's not a solid foundation of local representation nor is it a good advertisement for democracy.

    You always pretend that people rationally pick their favourite candidate but that simply isn't the case.

    You then moan that under STV and other systems the person who wasn't the first choice candidate wins and say that isn't democratic but the very same thing happens under FPTP. It's just hidden.

    But of course if it's hidden you can pretend it doesn't exist.

    Why is that not a solid foundation of local representation? Why is it not a good advertisement for democracy?

    If you're thinking through these issues then you are weighing up the pros and cons of issues and choices in your own mind. Then voting for your preferred candidate, after having filtered it through all the issues you choose to weigh up.

    That's a good thing not a bad thing. If millions of people are thinking through the consequences of their votes that's a plus for democracy not a negative.
    You've completely missed the point of course.
    No I've not, you have. You're talking about voters weighing up compromises in their own mind as if its a bad thing, it isn't. It is good not bad if people choose to weigh up their options before they vote.
  • NerysHughesNerysHughes Posts: 2,171

    Just back from receiving my AZ jab. Very efficient setup in Bradford. Now wait for the side effects.

    It was also the furthest from home I've been in almost 6 months.

    Had mine Saturday Morning, felt fine Saturday, could not get out of bed yesterday, not ill, just extremely tired, much better today.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 16,883

    @Philip_Thompson you always ignore situations like this:

    I want to vote for X who's not a Lab or Con candidate but I'm worried if I do my least favourite of Lab or Con will win. I therefore will vote for my favourite out of Lab or Con just in case.

    I'm willing to bet that that thought process is repeated by millions across the country.

    That's not a solid foundation of local representation nor is it a good advertisement for democracy.

    You always pretend that people rationally pick their favourite candidate but that simply isn't the case.

    You then moan that under STV and other systems the person who wasn't the first choice candidate wins and say that isn't democratic but the very same thing happens under FPTP. It's just hidden.

    But of course if it's hidden you can pretend it doesn't exist.

    Why is that not a solid foundation of local representation? Why is it not a good advertisement for democracy?

    If you're thinking through these issues then you are weighing up the pros and cons of issues and choices in your own mind. Then voting for your preferred candidate, after having filtered it through all the issues you choose to weigh up.

    That's a good thing not a bad thing. If millions of people are thinking through the consequences of their votes that's a plus for democracy not a negative.
    You've completely missed the point of course.
    No I've not, you have. You're talking about voters weighing up compromises in their own mind as if its a bad thing, it isn't. It is good not bad if people choose to weigh up their options before they vote.
    It's not compromise. It's not about voting for your "preferred candidate". It's about NOT voting for your preferred candidate on a local level because you're worried about the national picture.

    Your entire argument is based on local people electing a local representative. That completely breaks down when people are not voting for a local representative.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 30,239

    Andy_JS said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Floater said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Breaking news:

    Welsh supermarket shoppers can now buy Barbara Cartland novels.

    A nation rejoices .... or not
    Heard Drakeford speaking the other day. Very impressed with his nuanced and intelligent use of language.
    Drakeford is universally disliked. He closed the pubs (as a teetotaller himself) whilst Johnson (and the Conservatives) invented, procured and vaccinated the population. Very much the view on the ground. May is going to see Tories with most seats.
    He's a teetotaller? Never knew that. Makes a lot of sense

    There is a puritan edge to governance in Wales. Puritanism, as in: "the haunting fear that someone, somewhere may be happy"
    It's amazing how long-lasting culture is. You go to Massachusetts and everyone there thinks of themselves as incredibly modern, but as a British person you can feel the puritanism in the air almost from the moment you step into the airport.

    The fact that 20 year olds aren't allowed to drink beer, and so on.
    I once went into a bar in the depths of New England. There was a sign saying only two drinks would be served to each customer.
    Tbf two at a time is usually the most I can manage.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 65,124
    Bristol Mayor Marvin Rees slammed the rioters as "selfish" for "living out their revolutionary fantasies".

    Selfish...selfish...selfish is hogging the seat on the bus when oldie gets on board and there aren't any free seats...not smashing up police stations and trying to set vans on fire with police in them.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,445

    With regards to "your mum", no YOUR mum" argument about the whys and wherefores of FPTP vs whatever, its a question of scale.

    If the electoral horizon is the individual seat, then FPTP works just fine. Most votes wins is absolutely fair - the most popular candidate is elected.

    The problem is that most voters look to a wider horizon. Legally they vote for the named candidate in the named seat, but many choose to vote based on some wider thing they cann't influence such as who runs the country.

    If the electoral horizon is the UK then FPTP is not a good system because of the nature of the election being 650 individual elections. It is fundamentally undemocratic when looked at nationally for a party winning 35% of the vote to win a thumping majority - or a party winning 12% to fail to win a single seat.

    Fans of FPTP point to the single constituency level fairness as a means to justify the national unfairness. Until and unless we plan how to run a national election then we will never square this circle.

    Why is it unfair that the 12% fail to win a single seat?

    If a club in the Premier League with 12% posession across the season fails to win a game is that unfair?

    If you're starting from the premise that proportionality is fair then you're going to say that PR is fair by a logical truism. Doesn't make you right though. If you want to demonstrate that PR is fair you need to demonstrate WHY proportionality is a good thing.
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 3,605
    maaarsh said:

    Is there anything more dull than other people's opinions on voting systems? Can we have a colour coding system on post topic so I can more easily filter through straight to the posts attacking those mendacious bastards over the channel?

    Filter for Leon and BigG - and you’ll be sorted.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,445

    @Philip_Thompson you always ignore situations like this:

    I want to vote for X who's not a Lab or Con candidate but I'm worried if I do my least favourite of Lab or Con will win. I therefore will vote for my favourite out of Lab or Con just in case.

    I'm willing to bet that that thought process is repeated by millions across the country.

    That's not a solid foundation of local representation nor is it a good advertisement for democracy.

    You always pretend that people rationally pick their favourite candidate but that simply isn't the case.

    You then moan that under STV and other systems the person who wasn't the first choice candidate wins and say that isn't democratic but the very same thing happens under FPTP. It's just hidden.

    But of course if it's hidden you can pretend it doesn't exist.

    Why is that not a solid foundation of local representation? Why is it not a good advertisement for democracy?

    If you're thinking through these issues then you are weighing up the pros and cons of issues and choices in your own mind. Then voting for your preferred candidate, after having filtered it through all the issues you choose to weigh up.

    That's a good thing not a bad thing. If millions of people are thinking through the consequences of their votes that's a plus for democracy not a negative.
    You've completely missed the point of course.
    No I've not, you have. You're talking about voters weighing up compromises in their own mind as if its a bad thing, it isn't. It is good not bad if people choose to weigh up their options before they vote.
    It's not compromise. It's not about voting for your "preferred candidate". It's about NOT voting for your preferred candidate on a local level because you're worried about the national picture.

    Your entire argument is based on local people electing a local representative. That completely breaks down when people are not voting for a local representative.
    No, that's their choice. If they're worried about the national picture then their preferred candidate will be whoever they prefer after having thought about the national picture.

    That works, it doesn't break down.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 4,571
    Wonder if Contrarion would be happy with hearing loss for lots of the 99% who can just get covid in his chosen route for the pandemic?
    https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-hearing-loss-tinnitus-and-vertigo-may-be-associated-with-coronavirus-research-suggests-12253274
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,445
    Endillion said:

    Endillion said:

    Endillion said:

    Endillion said:

    @Endillion and @Philip_Thompson thought experiment time.

    Let's say under FPTP 650 independent MPs are elected to Parliament.

    Who is the "winner" of that election?

    Well eventually a loose confederation of proto-parties would form. It would have to happen as government is formed from it.
    Well obviously.

    My point is that FPTP works great in a locally orientated election of representatives to a legislature.

    It breaks down when a vast majority of people simply vote on national politics for parties.

    Then you don't get 650 winners. You get 1 winner on 30% of the vote.
    No you don't. You still have 650 MPs. That a majority of locations have chosen MPs of the same party is simply their choice, it could have gone otherwise.
    And yet you still can have 1 winner on 30% of the vote.

    Regardless of how you try and spin it, the ultimate result is that a party with a minority of voters supporting them is proclaimed the "winner" and not just a "winner", usually with complete control.

    That may be worth it for the benefits of "strong" government and the ability to "kick out the party in charge", etc but it's still a fact.
    You don't have 1 winner. You have 650 winners. Every MP counts and the government only gets its bills through if it commands a majority of the house.
    I'm sorry but that's idealised bullsh*t and you know it.
    No it is not. Look at the 2017 Parliament. Heck if over 40 Tory MPs rebel on an issue in this Parliament then votes can be lost even in this Parliament.

    Votes are only won in the House if a majority of the 650 elected MPs vote Aye. MPs can vote however they want, whenever they want, if they're prepared to own the consequences of that.
    This would only be true if there was some relationship between the views of each electorate, and the voting patterns of the MP they send to Parliament. While there might be in theory, in practice the MPs can basically do what they want 98% of the time.
    And they answer to their electorate for doing so.

    If the MP does a bad job then at the next election the voters can pick a new representative to replace them.
    Oh, stop it. I'm nominally on your side in this and you're making it impossible to agree with you. You know as well as the rest of us that it doesn't work that way, most of the time.
    I said can, not will.

    The reality is most MPs don't do an especially bad job representing their MPs precisely because they want to hold their seat. Is life perfect? No, of course not - but the voters have both the option to vote for someone else and the threat of having the option to vote for someone else to keep their MPs in line - that is why democracy works over non-democratic systems.
    I'm unclear who you think on here is advocating for "non-democratic systems", but if that's what you think is the alternative, it explains a few things.
    STV etc is less democratic in my opinion by ensuring the second and third choice get elected too for a constituency. In FPTP the only way to stay in Parliament is to remain the most popular candidate in your constituency, under STV being one of the primary candidates it doesn't matter if you finish first, second or third.
    Yes. Again, I'm on your side on this (nominally).

    My point is that there are clearly quite a lot of scenarios where the system doesn't work as it should, and denying that is pointless and makes you (and, by extension, me) sound dumb.
    Absolutely, no system is perfect. I never said it was.

    Of course there are issues, and when there are having the option to 'kick the bastards out' is important. Life isn't perfect, nothing in life is, so don't take it as me saying the system works perfectly - it works well enough.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 65,124
    edited March 22
    Another 4 years of no doing Khan, with lots of the tax base fleeing for the Cotswolds and Cornwall with remote working...I don't fancy being the mayor in 4 years time.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 11,162

    Bright sunshine, Chiffchaff singing near the window - winter is now but a faded memory.

    Snow is forecast for Friday apparently
    Maybe on the top of Snowdon.
    BBC forecast was cold weather towards the end of the week with risk of snow, but they did not mention Snowdon
    Mentioned even dartmoor (above 200m). Snow at Easter is more common than at Christmas.
    Indeed snow highly unlikely for 95% of the population. Perhaps some on the very high ground where almost nobody lives.

    The Easter snow thing is a myth, by the way.
    No its not.
    Snow is marginally more common in almost every region of the UK in December than in March as a whole, and significantly more common in December than in late March and April (when Easter falls). Snow at both Easter and Christmas is rare (most UK snowfall is in January and February) but it is somewhat rarer at Easter than at Christmas.

    The adage is a canard.

    https://www.weatheronline.co.uk/weather/maps/city?WMO=03772&FMM=12&LMM=12&FYY=2000&LYY=2021&LANG=en&R=0&LEVEL=162&MOD=MOA&ART=SNT&OFFSET=08&NOREGION=0
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,509
    edited March 22
    Some good news for Khan and Bailey there.

    Khan would win on the first round, so obviously a good result for him but some consolation for Bailey in that the 28% he is on would beat the 27% Steve Norris got in 2000 in the 1st round, so he would avoid getting the lowest voteshare for any Tory London Mayoral candidate yet
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 13,830

    Another 4 years of no doing Khan, with lots of the tax base fleeing for the Cotswolds and Cornwall with remote working...I don't fancy being the mayor in 4 years time.
    London is going to be the new San Fransisco or Portland, Oregon.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 4,376

    @Philip_Thompson you always ignore situations like this:

    I want to vote for X who's not a Lab or Con candidate but I'm worried if I do my least favourite of Lab or Con will win. I therefore will vote for my favourite out of Lab or Con just in case.

    I'm willing to bet that that thought process is repeated by millions across the country.

    That's not a solid foundation of local representation nor is it a good advertisement for democracy.

    You always pretend that people rationally pick their favourite candidate but that simply isn't the case.

    You then moan that under STV and other systems the person who wasn't the first choice candidate wins and say that isn't democratic but the very same thing happens under FPTP. It's just hidden.

    But of course if it's hidden you can pretend it doesn't exist.

    Why is that not a solid foundation of local representation? Why is it not a good advertisement for democracy?

    If you're thinking through these issues then you are weighing up the pros and cons of issues and choices in your own mind. Then voting for your preferred candidate, after having filtered it through all the issues you choose to weigh up.

    That's a good thing not a bad thing. If millions of people are thinking through the consequences of their votes that's a plus for democracy not a negative.
    You've completely missed the point of course.
    No I've not, you have. You're talking about voters weighing up compromises in their own mind as if its a bad thing, it isn't. It is good not bad if people choose to weigh up their options before they vote.
    It's not compromise. It's not about voting for your "preferred candidate". It's about NOT voting for your preferred candidate on a local level because you're worried about the national picture.

    Your entire argument is based on local people electing a local representative. That completely breaks down when people are not voting for a local representative.
    I can't remember where this discussion started but I hope you get a training contract with an experienced plaintiff litigator who doesn't settle easily.

  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 4,571
    edited March 22

    Bright sunshine, Chiffchaff singing near the window - winter is now but a faded memory.

    Snow is forecast for Friday apparently
    Maybe on the top of Snowdon.
    BBC forecast was cold weather towards the end of the week with risk of snow, but they did not mention Snowdon
    Mentioned even dartmoor (above 200m). Snow at Easter is more common than at Christmas.
    Indeed snow highly unlikely for 95% of the population. Perhaps some on the very high ground where almost nobody lives.

    The Easter snow thing is a myth, by the way.
    No its not.
    Snow is marginally more common in almost every region of the UK in December than in March as a whole, and significantly more common in December than in late March and April (when Easter falls). Snow at both Easter and Christmas is rare (most UK snowfall is in January and February) but it is somewhat rarer at Easter than at Christmas.

    The adage is a canard.

    https://www.weatheronline.co.uk/weather/maps/city?WMO=03772&FMM=12&LMM=12&FYY=2000&LYY=2021&LANG=en&R=0&LEVEL=162&MOD=MOA&ART=SNT&OFFSET=08&NOREGION=0
    I've seen it from many professionals at the Met - are they all wrong? As in actual recorded snow on Dec 25th and the day that easter falls?

    Happy to accept its wrong but would like the specific evidence...
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 25,477

    kinabalu said:

    Floater said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Breaking news:

    Welsh supermarket shoppers can now buy Barbara Cartland novels.

    A nation rejoices .... or not
    Heard Drakeford speaking the other day. Very impressed with his nuanced and intelligent use of language.
    Drakeford is universally disliked. He closed the pubs (as a teetotaller himself) whilst Johnson (and the Conservatives) invented, procured and vaccinated the population. Very much the view on the ground. May is going to see Tories with most seats.
    And he wants to continue restrictions into 2022
    Did you hear his speech the other day though? V good.
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 3,605
    Bailey seems to be spending a lot at the moment: billboards and mailings bemoaning low traffic neighbourhoods, for example. I’ve changed my view of him to be fair. I used to think he was merely a lightweight, whereas now I think he’s actively repellent.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 30,239
    HYUFD said:

    Some good news for Khan and Bailey there.

    Khan would win on the first round, so obviously a good result for him but some consolation for Bailey in that the 28% he is on would beat the 27% Steve Norris got in 2000 in the 1st round, so he would avoid getting the lowest voteshare for any Tory London Mayoral candidate yet
    Tiniest hooray evaah
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 3,605

    P.s Whatabout Lozzer and Brian Rose? !!!
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,445

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    IanB2 said:

    algarkirk said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    DavidL said:

    Really not sure I get this argument. Why is a vote "wasted" if I don't choose one of those who get through to the final round but not "wasted" when I vote for someone that loses in FPTP?

    We certainly have more important things to worry about, on that I agree.

    Because your vote is not counted. Literally. You wanted to register a second preference, the system allowed you to do so, and yet it was not counted at all; your voice is missing from the result, not as a consequence of abstention but because of the vaguary and chance of the mechanism and combined vote.

    At least, when you vote for a losing candidate under FPTP, your choice for them (and implicitly, against the winner), is recorded and acts as political mandate for or against the winner, and helps frame actions within the politicians term and future elections.
    Your arguments are getting more and more pitiful.
    Yours are getting more and more evidence-free. You simply make an assertion, mix in some abuse and assume that the natural virtue will shine though.
    To see a Tory try to claim there are no wasted votes when we know the Tories will be round telling voters not to waste their votes on third parties is a level of hypocrisy which I didn't expect from you.
    Voting system and the rhetoric of campaigning are two different subjects. BTW if you assume that voting is a community activity not an individual one the concept of a wasted vote doesn't really mean anything.

    Yes but the Tories know that the system effectively ensures most third party votes are wasted (ex where very geographically concentrated) and explicitly uses that to push voters toward a choice between itself and its favourite opponent.

    To have Herdson sink as low as claiming there are no wasted votes and resorting to specious argument like suggesting those votes somehow influence the mandate, is sickening.

    I can only guess that a lead with such little integrity has been written because its author needs or wants to ingratiate with someone in his party
    Third votes aren't wasted in the UK: They lost.

    There's a difference.
    Try and get football off your brain. Democracy is about representation not winners and losers.
    No, democracy is about winners and losers. The winners become the representatives, the losers don't.

    You can have other means of picking representatives. Like party apparatchiks picking people who are sound and putting them into the legislature, like China does, but that's not democracy.
    I really dislike how you approach this subject. You completely disregard any valid criticism of FPTP and instead revert to ridiculous comparisons with China and other totalitarian regimes.

    Your interpretation of what democracy is not necessary the same as other people's. That doesn't mean they are wrong.
    I wasn't responding to "any valid criticism" though, I was responding to the absurd and ridiculous notion that it is "not about winners and losers".

    Every single voting system in the world is about winners and losers. The concept of winners and losers is a fundamental part of democracy. How you determine who the winner is varies depending upon the system, but the concept of winners and losers is not unique to FPTP it is a fundamental part of democracy itself.

    If the critics of FPTP actually used any "valid criticism" and didn't leap to absurd arguments then it wouldn't be necessary to show why the absurd is absurd.
    No. Stop it. Not "winners and losers". That's football. This is democracy.

    Representation.
    Every citizen of this country is represented in Parliament; but only if they vote for the winner of the election are they represented in government.

    Oddly enough, parties that can win elections prefer to think of democracy as an exercise in the allocation of power; parties that can't see it as a means of representing a range of opinion.

    The former set of parties tend to win the argument de facto, since they are, er, in power and don't need to concern themselves with what the latter think.
    Every voter is represented in Parliament but not every voter is represented proportionately.

    This is the usual triumphalist nonsense from you but I expected nothing less.
    Why should we care about proportionality?
    Why wouldn't you care about proportionality to some extent?

    I can see the argument that proportionality isn't the be all and end all, and that you'd rather sacrifice that to some extent in favour of a stable, functioning government (leaving aside the irony that 2010-15 was a period of very stable government). But it isn't in some way irrelevant whether a party getting, say, 20% of the vote get one MP or around 20% of MPs.

    It's a bit one-eyed to say FPTP has no disadvantages because proportionality doesn't matter at all. That is fairly obviously a drawback of FPTP even if, in your opinion, it's outweighed by other advantages.
    I think its entirely irrelevant.

    Why wouldn't I care? Because I don't think it matters - and because despite debating this issue often the people on the side of proportionality take it as some form of divine religious dogma that proportionality is important and view anyone who disagrees as some sort of heretic.

    I'm sorry but I don't buy into that dogma. Proportionality just does not matter to me and if someone wants to make the case for why it should matter then do so, otherwise its just like saying to an atheist that homosexuality is a sin because the Bible says so.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 65,124
    edited March 22
    Andy_JS said:

    Another 4 years of no doing Khan, with lots of the tax base fleeing for the Cotswolds and Cornwall with remote working...I don't fancy being the mayor in 4 years time.
    London is going to be the new San Fransisco or Portland, Oregon.
    I don't think it will go that far, but certainly envision problems ahead. Nor would I go anywhwre near as bad as NYC 80s, but I can see it go further downhill, more crime / less taxable income, leads to even more people leaving...

    For lots of middle class / upper middle class jobs, you can remote work for 3-4 days a week and just commute in for the other days. And stay in a hotel on the occasion you want a night out.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 3,699
    Andy_JS said:

    Another 4 years of no doing Khan, with lots of the tax base fleeing for the Cotswolds and Cornwall with remote working...I don't fancy being the mayor in 4 years time.
    London is going to be the new San Fransisco or Portland, Oregon.
    I don't think it will be that bad because, thankfully, he has less control over the Police and also because the scenes in SF / Portland would never be tolerated in the capital city with a lot of tourists.

    But what is going on with GLA. I live in Camden and got my council tax bill for the year. The GLA part of it went up 9.5%
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 4,376
    Boris continues being a lucky general. The Bristol protests, intended to be against a fairly authoritarian measure about protests, was a perfect demonstration to the whole of middling Britain of why the bill might be a good idea.
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 3,791
    The 1.05 on Betfair that Khan wins is genuinely value at this point. If he doesn't die he's at least a 99% chance of winning, and it's only a few weeks now.

    I already have...a lot of money on this so won't be topping up. But it's honestly outrageous how much of a one-horse race this is.
  • LennonLennon Posts: 1,569
    As always, it seems to me that we can't really have a sensible discussion about Voting Systems until we decide what we are trying to do with our votes, which comes back to the eternally unanswered question 'What is the job of an MP'. Depending on if the answer is 'to represent the constituency in Parliament'; 'to represent a set of views held across the country'; 'to provide a pool of people from whom the executive is picked'; 'to count towards a party total to decide who the PM should be'; 'to put forward and attempt to implement the specific manifesto they were individually elected on' will determine to some extent which voting system best answers that question.

    Even when it comes to a Regional Mayor - whilst (in my mind) SV is the worst of all worlds, the argument about AV v FPTP is still a valid one which will be determined to some degree by the job that you are electing them to and what you think that should be. I could argue that for Mayor of London, FPTP is more appropriate as you want a clear winner from the population, and the range of opinons is taken into account by the PR nature of the London Assembly who are meant to hold the Mayor to account. With the other Mayoralties without an Assembly then perhaps AV is more appropriate so that you get a 'least bad' option, rather than 'clear winner;' option who is therefore more 'middle of the road' and taking a larger proportion of the population into account as there isn't the wider accountability.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 3,869
    kinabalu said:

    Endillion said:

    kinabalu said:

    Endillion said:

    kinabalu said:

    IanB2 said:

    algarkirk said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    DavidL said:

    Really not sure I get this argument. Why is a vote "wasted" if I don't choose one of those who get through to the final round but not "wasted" when I vote for someone that loses in FPTP?

    We certainly have more important things to worry about, on that I agree.

    Because your vote is not counted. Literally. You wanted to register a second preference, the system allowed you to do so, and yet it was not counted at all; your voice is missing from the result, not as a consequence of abstention but because of the vaguary and chance of the mechanism and combined vote.

    At least, when you vote for a losing candidate under FPTP, your choice for them (and implicitly, against the winner), is recorded and acts as political mandate for or against the winner, and helps frame actions within the politicians term and future elections.
    Your arguments are getting more and more pitiful.
    Yours are getting more and more evidence-free. You simply make an assertion, mix in some abuse and assume that the natural virtue will shine though.
    To see a Tory try to claim there are no wasted votes when we know the Tories will be round telling voters not to waste their votes on third parties is a level of hypocrisy which I didn't expect from you.
    Voting system and the rhetoric of campaigning are two different subjects. BTW if you assume that voting is a community activity not an individual one the concept of a wasted vote doesn't really mean anything.

    Yes but the Tories know that the system effectively ensures most third party votes are wasted (ex where very geographically concentrated) and explicitly uses that to push voters toward a choice between itself and its favourite opponent.

    To have Herdson sink as low as claiming there are no wasted votes and resorting to specious argument like suggesting those votes somehow influence the mandate, is sickening.

    I can only guess that a lead with such little integrity has been written because its author needs or wants to ingratiate with someone in his party
    Third votes aren't wasted in the UK: They lost.

    There's a difference.
    Try and get football off your brain. Democracy is about representation not winners and losers.
    This is the difference between political philosophy and how people actually think in a nutshell, and why the former rarely survives contact with reality: most people don't actually derive any satisfaction from having voted for a party to spend five years in pointless opposition. All they know is they lost, and it'll be years before they have another chance to vote for a party that will have a chance of enacting an agenda they care about.
    That's a separate point to the one I'm making - that the voting public should be thought of as being represented not divided into winners and losers. But in any case I don't agree with you that people think as you describe. The real partisans, yes, but most people are not 100% pro one platform and 100% anti the others. So if the party they voted for loses, they don't get too down about it. They shrug and get on with their life.
    I'm not sure that's the case - the EU referendum was an interesting example where millions of people who'd previously been moderates suddenly turned into raving partisans for whichever side they'd eventually come down for, simply because it dominated the news cycle for years afterwards. I would rather say that who's in power in Westminster doesn't actually matter to most people on a day-to-day basis, so it drops out of the front of their minds. In the immediate aftermath, I would expect they'd view "their" party as having "won" or "lost". It's just how people perceive things.

    Anyway, all you're saying is that those people don't care about representation, or about who wins. Which raises the question as to why we should restructure our democracy to better represent them, when clearly most people won't care?
    Binary referendums are rather different. There, the individual voters DO win or lose. There's no way around that. But for general elections this should not be the case. It should be about fair representation not winning or losing. Come GE24, if I vote Labour and the Cons win again, my feeling ought to be, "Shit, Labour have lost again." Or that "we" have lost again (if I'm a member or just quite partisan). But I should not feel that EYE have lost the election. If individual voters feel that, it indicates something amiss with the system. And I imagine people do feel that where the party they vote for gets a big national vote but no seats. They feel they have "lost" because they are not fairly represented. Democracy being about voters being represented (by parties which win and lose) not about voters themselves winning or losing. This is my point.
    It feels like you're assuming that elections are fought on a basis of a spectrum of views available, and voters pick a point on said spectrum that best matches their own personal views. It's one way of looking at things, but my preference is to assume that GEs are a set of binary (or ternary; whatever) choices, based on each party's manifesto commitments. And most people only care about a small handful of those choices. In that sense, GEs boil down to a series of mini-referendums on (say) whether taxes go up or down, whether schools and the national curriculum become more centralised or more localised, whether a local hospital stays open or shuts.
  • Labour going forwards in London and Scotland, now the Red Wall must be the focus
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 41,526
    When is the Hamilton report out?
  • bettorbettor Posts: 5
    FPTP may lead to some (or even many) votes being effectively ignored but the political sclerosis caused by PR means that ALL votes end up being ignored, with either an endless series of brief, unstable coalitions (e.g. Italy) or an endless left-right grand coalition (e.g. Germany).
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 3,869
    MrEd said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Another 4 years of no doing Khan, with lots of the tax base fleeing for the Cotswolds and Cornwall with remote working...I don't fancy being the mayor in 4 years time.
    London is going to be the new San Fransisco or Portland, Oregon.
    I don't think it will be that bad because, thankfully, he has less control over the Police and also because the scenes in SF / Portland would never be tolerated in the capital city with a lot of tourists.

    But what is going on with GLA. I live in Camden and got my council tax bill for the year. The GLA part of it went up 9.5%
    Isn't it just that TfL is essentially bankrupt? It was in bad shape before the pandemic (largely due to Khan's mismanagement - promising to freeze single trip fares was probably the second worst single thing he's done, after whatever he did to increase the murder rate), but the current WFH trend has put it well below the waterline.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 14,095

    With regards to "your mum", no YOUR mum" argument about the whys and wherefores of FPTP vs whatever, its a question of scale.

    If the electoral horizon is the individual seat, then FPTP works just fine. Most votes wins is absolutely fair - the most popular candidate is elected.

    The problem is that most voters look to a wider horizon. Legally they vote for the named candidate in the named seat, but many choose to vote based on some wider thing they cann't influence such as who runs the country.

    If the electoral horizon is the UK then FPTP is not a good system because of the nature of the election being 650 individual elections. It is fundamentally undemocratic when looked at nationally for a party winning 35% of the vote to win a thumping majority - or a party winning 12% to fail to win a single seat.

    Fans of FPTP point to the single constituency level fairness as a means to justify the national unfairness. Until and unless we plan how to run a national election then we will never square this circle.

    Why is it unfair that the 12% fail to win a single seat?

    If a club in the Premier League with 12% posession across the season fails to win a game is that unfair?

    If you're starting from the premise that proportionality is fair then you're going to say that PR is fair by a logical truism. Doesn't make you right though. If you want to demonstrate that PR is fair you need to demonstrate WHY proportionality is a good thing.
    Its unfair in the context of a national election. I'm agreeing with your position (albeit not your tone...) on FPTP being fair at constituency level. Its when you widen it out to the reality that we live in a town / nation / country and its representation at that level to which people aspire and just just the individual seat.

    Personally I have been a long-standing advocate for Single Transferable Vote in multi-member constituencies, but I know I am in the minority. So the regional list system used up here for Holyrood is a good compromise. People can vote for their constituency and have a free vote for the list which tops up seats to reflect proportionality.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 65,124
    edited March 22
    MrEd said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Another 4 years of no doing Khan, with lots of the tax base fleeing for the Cotswolds and Cornwall with remote working...I don't fancy being the mayor in 4 years time.
    London is going to be the new San Fransisco or Portland, Oregon.
    I don't think it will be that bad because, thankfully, he has less control over the Police and also because the scenes in SF / Portland would never be tolerated in the capital city with a lot of tourists.

    But what is going on with GLA. I live in Camden and got my council tax bill for the year. The GLA part of it went up 9.5%
    The one thing the UK population don't like to see, violence at protests....students had support over fees, then they smashed up London...BLM had support, then they became violent, and mass support for turning out dropped off... the anti-statue toppler, one and done.

    We aren't the French, where it doesn't count as proper protest in the public mind unless there are fires raging and rocks been thrown.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 30,239
    edited March 22
    Christ, an msp sending a bleaty letter to another party saying they should stand in a constituency just to improve his own chances is about the limpest dick thing I can imagine.

    https://twitter.com/JamesKellyLab/status/1373980723309375493?s=20
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 14,095
    HYUFD said:

    Some good news for Khan and Bailey there.

    Khan would win on the first round, so obviously a good result for him but some consolation for Bailey in that the 28% he is on would beat the 27% Steve Norris got in 2000 in the 1st round, so he would avoid getting the lowest voteshare for any Tory London Mayoral candidate yet
    Is "not as shit as Norris" the only consolation you can find for your guy being an absolutely shite candidate?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 20,216
    algarkirk said:

    Boris continues being a lucky general. The Bristol protests, intended to be against a fairly authoritarian measure about protests, was a perfect demonstration to the whole of middling Britain of why the bill might be a good idea.

    Yes - shades of the alcohol ban Boris brought in on TfL when he was mayor.

    For those who don't remember - the alcohol ban was bought in on the basis of reducing violence, racist and sexist abuse on the Tube etc.

    The opponents of the ban held a protest at Liverpool Street station - one last piss-up, it was billed as. Which turned into a violent, drunken confrontation. Followed by a number of reports of violence, racist and sexist abuse as the protestors made their way home by public transport...
  • No_Offence_AlanNo_Offence_Alan Posts: 2,450
    edited March 22

    Endillion said:

    Endillion said:

    Endillion said:

    @Endillion and @Philip_Thompson thought experiment time.

    Let's say under FPTP 650 independent MPs are elected to Parliament.

    Who is the "winner" of that election?

    Well eventually a loose confederation of proto-parties would form. It would have to happen as government is formed from it.
    Well obviously.

    My point is that FPTP works great in a locally orientated election of representatives to a legislature.

    It breaks down when a vast majority of people simply vote on national politics for parties.

    Then you don't get 650 winners. You get 1 winner on 30% of the vote.
    No you don't. You still have 650 MPs. That a majority of locations have chosen MPs of the same party is simply their choice, it could have gone otherwise.
    And yet you still can have 1 winner on 30% of the vote.

    Regardless of how you try and spin it, the ultimate result is that a party with a minority of voters supporting them is proclaimed the "winner" and not just a "winner", usually with complete control.

    That may be worth it for the benefits of "strong" government and the ability to "kick out the party in charge", etc but it's still a fact.
    You don't have 1 winner. You have 650 winners. Every MP counts and the government only gets its bills through if it commands a majority of the house.
    I'm sorry but that's idealised bullsh*t and you know it.
    No it is not. Look at the 2017 Parliament. Heck if over 40 Tory MPs rebel on an issue in this Parliament then votes can be lost even in this Parliament.

    Votes are only won in the House if a majority of the 650 elected MPs vote Aye. MPs can vote however they want, whenever they want, if they're prepared to own the consequences of that.
    This would only be true if there was some relationship between the views of each electorate, and the voting patterns of the MP they send to Parliament. While there might be in theory, in practice the MPs can basically do what they want 98% of the time.
    And they answer to their electorate for doing so.

    If the MP does a bad job then at the next election the voters can pick a new representative to replace them.
    Oh, stop it. I'm nominally on your side in this and you're making it impossible to agree with you. You know as well as the rest of us that it doesn't work that way, most of the time.
    I said can, not will.

    The reality is most MPs don't do an especially bad job representing their MPs precisely because they want to hold their seat. Is life perfect? No, of course not - but the voters have both the option to vote for someone else and the threat of having the option to vote for someone else to keep their MPs in line - that is why democracy works over non-democratic systems.
    I'm unclear who you think on here is advocating for "non-democratic systems", but if that's what you think is the alternative, it explains a few things.
    STV etc is less democratic in my opinion by ensuring the second and third choice get elected too for a constituency. In FPTP the only way to stay in Parliament is to remain the most popular candidate in your constituency, under STV being one of the primary candidates it doesn't matter if you finish first, second or third.
    If, under STV, you vote for the most popular candidate and they get elected, what's the problem?
    You have cast your vote for your preferred choice and they have been elected.
    You have "won" ! - what you don't get is a veto on other people having their choice elected too..
    STV just allows more people to do this.
    Of course, a problem arises, as in AV, when in an N-member seat, some-one outside the top N candidates get in.
    Which is why I prefer SNTV.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 3,869

    Endillion said:

    Endillion said:

    Endillion said:

    Endillion said:

    @Endillion and @Philip_Thompson thought experiment time.

    Let's say under FPTP 650 independent MPs are elected to Parliament.

    Who is the "winner" of that election?

    Well eventually a loose confederation of proto-parties would form. It would have to happen as government is formed from it.
    Well obviously.

    My point is that FPTP works great in a locally orientated election of representatives to a legislature.

    It breaks down when a vast majority of people simply vote on national politics for parties.

    Then you don't get 650 winners. You get 1 winner on 30% of the vote.
    No you don't. You still have 650 MPs. That a majority of locations have chosen MPs of the same party is simply their choice, it could have gone otherwise.
    And yet you still can have 1 winner on 30% of the vote.

    Regardless of how you try and spin it, the ultimate result is that a party with a minority of voters supporting them is proclaimed the "winner" and not just a "winner", usually with complete control.

    That may be worth it for the benefits of "strong" government and the ability to "kick out the party in charge", etc but it's still a fact.
    You don't have 1 winner. You have 650 winners. Every MP counts and the government only gets its bills through if it commands a majority of the house.
    I'm sorry but that's idealised bullsh*t and you know it.
    No it is not. Look at the 2017 Parliament. Heck if over 40 Tory MPs rebel on an issue in this Parliament then votes can be lost even in this Parliament.

    Votes are only won in the House if a majority of the 650 elected MPs vote Aye. MPs can vote however they want, whenever they want, if they're prepared to own the consequences of that.
    This would only be true if there was some relationship between the views of each electorate, and the voting patterns of the MP they send to Parliament. While there might be in theory, in practice the MPs can basically do what they want 98% of the time.
    And they answer to their electorate for doing so.

    If the MP does a bad job then at the next election the voters can pick a new representative to replace them.
    Oh, stop it. I'm nominally on your side in this and you're making it impossible to agree with you. You know as well as the rest of us that it doesn't work that way, most of the time.
    I said can, not will.

    The reality is most MPs don't do an especially bad job representing their MPs precisely because they want to hold their seat. Is life perfect? No, of course not - but the voters have both the option to vote for someone else and the threat of having the option to vote for someone else to keep their MPs in line - that is why democracy works over non-democratic systems.
    I'm unclear who you think on here is advocating for "non-democratic systems", but if that's what you think is the alternative, it explains a few things.
    STV etc is less democratic in my opinion by ensuring the second and third choice get elected too for a constituency. In FPTP the only way to stay in Parliament is to remain the most popular candidate in your constituency, under STV being one of the primary candidates it doesn't matter if you finish first, second or third.
    Yes. Again, I'm on your side on this (nominally).

    My point is that there are clearly quite a lot of scenarios where the system doesn't work as it should, and denying that is pointless and makes you (and, by extension, me) sound dumb.
    Absolutely, no system is perfect. I never said it was.

    Of course there are issues, and when there are having the option to 'kick the bastards out' is important. Life isn't perfect, nothing in life is, so don't take it as me saying the system works perfectly - it works well enough.
    Kicking the bastards out isn't a safety valve for when there are issues - it's a necessary component of a well-functioning system. Indeed, the main problem identified with FPTP is how difficult it can be to get rid of some very bad candidates - albeit, it's unclear which other systems would do better (list-based systems in particular are notorious).

    Take me, for instance. I'm a Tory voter in a constituency with a fairly safe, but moronic, MP, whom I don't like - he was a bit of a No Deal diehard for most of 2019 (for a pro-Remain constituency) and is generally considered to do poorly on local issues. Tory candidates are generally quite difficult to deselect, so how do I get rid of him without replacing him with someone worse?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 25,477

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    IanB2 said:

    algarkirk said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    DavidL said:

    Really not sure I get this argument. Why is a vote "wasted" if I don't choose one of those who get through to the final round but not "wasted" when I vote for someone that loses in FPTP?

    We certainly have more important things to worry about, on that I agree.

    Because your vote is not counted. Literally. You wanted to register a second preference, the system allowed you to do so, and yet it was not counted at all; your voice is missing from the result, not as a consequence of abstention but because of the vaguary and chance of the mechanism and combined vote.

    At least, when you vote for a losing candidate under FPTP, your choice for them (and implicitly, against the winner), is recorded and acts as political mandate for or against the winner, and helps frame actions within the politicians term and future elections.
    Your arguments are getting more and more pitiful.
    Yours are getting more and more evidence-free. You simply make an assertion, mix in some abuse and assume that the natural virtue will shine though.
    To see a Tory try to claim there are no wasted votes when we know the Tories will be round telling voters not to waste their votes on third parties is a level of hypocrisy which I didn't expect from you.
    Voting system and the rhetoric of campaigning are two different subjects. BTW if you assume that voting is a community activity not an individual one the concept of a wasted vote doesn't really mean anything.

    Yes but the Tories know that the system effectively ensures most third party votes are wasted (ex where very geographically concentrated) and explicitly uses that to push voters toward a choice between itself and its favourite opponent.

    To have Herdson sink as low as claiming there are no wasted votes and resorting to specious argument like suggesting those votes somehow influence the mandate, is sickening.

    I can only guess that a lead with such little integrity has been written because its author needs or wants to ingratiate with someone in his party
    Third votes aren't wasted in the UK: They lost.

    There's a difference.
    Try and get football off your brain. Democracy is about representation not winners and losers.
    No, democracy is about winners and losers. The winners become the representatives, the losers don't.

    You can have other means of picking representatives. Like party apparatchiks picking people who are sound and putting them into the legislature, like China does, but that's not democracy.
    I really dislike how you approach this subject. You completely disregard any valid criticism of FPTP and instead revert to ridiculous comparisons with China and other totalitarian regimes.

    Your interpretation of what democracy is not necessary the same as other people's. That doesn't mean they are wrong.
    I wasn't responding to "any valid criticism" though, I was responding to the absurd and ridiculous notion that it is "not about winners and losers".

    Every single voting system in the world is about winners and losers. The concept of winners and losers is a fundamental part of democracy. How you determine who the winner is varies depending upon the system, but the concept of winners and losers is not unique to FPTP it is a fundamental part of democracy itself.

    If the critics of FPTP actually used any "valid criticism" and didn't leap to absurd arguments then it wouldn't be necessary to show why the absurd is absurd.
    No. Stop it. Not "winners and losers". That's football. This is democracy.

    Representation.
    Every citizen of this country is represented in Parliament; but only if they vote for the winner of the election are they represented in government.

    Oddly enough, parties that can win elections prefer to think of democracy as an exercise in the allocation of power; parties that can't see it as a means of representing a range of opinion.

    The former set of parties tend to win the argument de facto, since they are, er, in power and don't need to concern themselves with what the latter think.
    Yes, views on this tend to be shaped by realpolitik and partisanship. But putting that to one side, the statement that "every citizen is represented in Parliament" is not true. Or rather it's true and false at the same time. Yes, you have your local MP. That's great, especially if they are diligent, working their fingers to the bone for their constituents. However, at the national level, the party whose policies and values you support might get no seats despite getting a decent sized national vote. In this sense, you are not represented. Not in parliament. Not anywhere.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 10,814

    felix said:

    Lunacy in Europe episode 555 - Spain will welcome German tourists over the Easter period while continuing to ban any internal travel to Spanish nationals. Cases in Spain are currently low. Caes in Germany are high.

    Why are Germany allowing non-essential foreign travel? Crazy. In the first wave, they sensibly closed their borders.
    I think Germany is cruising for a bruising.

    AFAICS they are lifting restrictions at a time when COVID infection is increasing when about 91% of their population have not been vaccinated at all. And new variants are around.

    Quite a lot of mortality is probably already booked in, as we found over Christmas.


  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 14,095

    Christ, an msp sending a bleaty letter to another party saying they should stand in a constituency just to improve his own chances is about the limpest dick thing I can imagine.

    https://twitter.com/JamesKellyLab/status/1373980723309375493?s=20

    This is why the additional member system is a decent compromise. There is little point in small parties standing for constituencies - their support is too diffuse. But combine it all together into a top-up and they're all good.

    If young jobbie here thinks he's already lost to the SNP then so much for the comeback for non-indy parties. Rutherglen is the kind of seat where they used to weigh the Labour vote...
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 13,830
    "London, Manchester and other cities lagging behind in the vaccine roll-out are at risk of becoming Covid 'pockets' because millions won't be protected, SAGE adviser warns"

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9388705/London-Manchester-cities-risk-Covid-pockets-SAGE-adviser-warns.html
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 57,370
    EHV (enormo-haddock voting) is clearly the superior system.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 34,062

    @Endillion and @Philip_Thompson thought experiment time.

    Let's say under FPTP 650 independent MPs are elected to Parliament.

    Who is the "winner" of that election?

    Well eventually a loose confederation of proto-parties would form. It would have to happen as government is formed from it.
    Well obviously.

    My point is that FPTP works great in a locally orientated election of representatives to a legislature.

    It breaks down when a vast majority of people simply vote on national politics for parties.

    Then you don't get 650 winners. You get 1 winner on 30% of the vote.
    No you don't. You still have 650 MPs. That a majority of locations have chosen MPs of the same party is simply their choice, it could have gone otherwise.
    And yet you still can have 1 winner on 30% of the vote.

    Regardless of how you try and spin it, the ultimate result is that a party with a minority of voters supporting them is proclaimed the "winner" and not just a "winner", usually with complete control.

    That may be worth it for the benefits of "strong" government and the ability to "kick out the party in charge", etc but it's still a fact.
    You don't have 1 winner. You have 650 winners. Every MP counts and the government only gets its bills through if it commands a majority of the house.
    I'm sorry but that's idealised bullsh*t and you know it.
    No it is not. Look at the 2017 Parliament....
    First time I've heard you call them winners.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 34,484

    sarissa said:

    MattW said:

    malcolmg said:
    Contempt of court proceedings should be used when the actions of a person bring the standing of the judicial system into disrepute. Here, it is the actions of the use of contempt of court that is bringing the judicial system into disrepute. All to save the blushes of a lying politician.
    Jigsaw identification of complainants allegedly possible due to his blog-reports on the Salmond Trial.
    Action was taken at the instigation of the COPFS prosecution counsel, but identical transgressions by journalists, or even outright naming goes unpunished.
    'Rape Crisis Scotland' identified a complainant to all the newspapers in the metadata of a press release email they sent out recently. Let's hope similar action is taken there.

    Not a chance , they are Nicola's PR company, fully funded.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 57,370
    F1: call me old-fashioned but I like just having a team principal rather than a committee:
    https://twitter.com/adamcooperF1/status/1373953632048152577
  • ClippPClippP Posts: 891

    Christ, an msp sending a bleaty letter to another party saying they should stand in a constituency just to improve his own chances is about the limpest dick thing I can imagine.
    https://twitter.com/JamesKellyLab/status/1373980723309375493?s=20

    They are playing by the rules which were set up by the..... wait for it! ..... by the Labour Party.

    It seems to me that Mr Kelly is not over-bright.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 46,315

    Christ, an msp sending a bleaty letter to another party saying they should stand in a constituency just to improve his own chances is about the limpest dick thing I can imagine.

    https://twitter.com/JamesKellyLab/status/1373980723309375493?s=20

    This is why the additional member system is a decent compromise. There is little point in small parties standing for constituencies - their support is too diffuse. But combine it all together into a top-up and they're all good.

    If young jobbie here thinks he's already lost to the SNP then so much for the comeback for non-indy parties. Rutherglen is the kind of seat where they used to weigh the Labour vote...
    You used to weigh the labour vote for most every seat when I lived in Scotland
  • CookieCookie Posts: 4,493

    Bright sunshine, Chiffchaff singing near the window - winter is now but a faded memory.

    Snow is forecast for Friday apparently
    Maybe on the top of Snowdon.
    BBC forecast was cold weather towards the end of the week with risk of snow, but they did not mention Snowdon
    Mentioned even dartmoor (above 200m). Snow at Easter is more common than at Christmas.
    Indeed snow highly unlikely for 95% of the population. Perhaps some on the very high ground where almost nobody lives.

    The Easter snow thing is a myth, by the way.
    No its not.
    Snow is marginally more common in almost every region of the UK in December than in March as a whole, and significantly more common in December than in late March and April (when Easter falls). Snow at both Easter and Christmas is rare (most UK snowfall is in January and February) but it is somewhat rarer at Easter than at Christmas.

    The adage is a canard.

    https://www.weatheronline.co.uk/weather/maps/city?WMO=03772&FMM=12&LMM=12&FYY=2000&LYY=2021&LANG=en&R=0&LEVEL=162&MOD=MOA&ART=SNT&OFFSET=08&NOREGION=0
    I've seen it from many professionals at the Met - are they all wrong? As in actual recorded snow on Dec 25th and the day that easter falls?

    Happy to accept its wrong but would like the specific evidence...
    Is this a difference between 'a few flurries' and a proper white carpet of the stuff?
    I can remember several Christmasses in the past 20 years on which, yes, technically it snowed, but not in any way which you could go and play in. I can remember very few examples of that at Easter. But I do remember a couple of proper Easter dumpings of the stuff (2008?).
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 30,239

    Christ, an msp sending a bleaty letter to another party saying they should stand in a constituency just to improve his own chances is about the limpest dick thing I can imagine.

    https://twitter.com/JamesKellyLab/status/1373980723309375493?s=20

    This is why the additional member system is a decent compromise. There is little point in small parties standing for constituencies - their support is too diffuse. But combine it all together into a top-up and they're all good.

    If young jobbie here thinks he's already lost to the SNP then so much for the comeback for non-indy parties. Rutherglen is the kind of seat where they used to weigh the Labour vote...
    Kelly's a good bit further down the Glasgow Labour list than he's been previously I think, hence his new found concerns.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 31,860

    F1: call me old-fashioned but I like just having a team principal rather than a committee:
    https://twitter.com/adamcooperF1/status/1373953632048152577

    That kind of structure made McLaren a midfield team, it's taken them 10 years to recover and start fighting near the top again. Rule by committee doesn't work.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 68,492
    The absolute horror of providing testers with outdoor clothing and snacks.

    https://inews.co.uk/news/sodexo-private-company-covid-test-sites-millions-of-taxpayer-money-snacks-923625

    There are issues with Test and Trace. This is not one of them.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 13,830
    "French newspapers all turn on Macron over AstraZeneca vaccine blunder: 'F*** YOU!'
    FRENCH newspapers have turned on Emmanuel Macron, branding his Government's decision to put millions of people in Paris and parts of northern France into a fresh lockdown an "admission of failure"."

    https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1412493/France-news-Emmanuel-Macron-Paris-lockdown-latest-AstraZeneca-vaccine-vn
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 20,216

    EHV (enormo-haddock voting) is clearly the superior system.

    Details - for example, is it single-constituency (the sea) ?
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 16,883

    EHV (enormo-haddock voting) is clearly the superior system.

    I had a enormo cod in Amble yesterday and it was delicious so I'm sold.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 25,477

    With regards to "your mum", no YOUR mum" argument about the whys and wherefores of FPTP vs whatever, its a question of scale.

    If the electoral horizon is the individual seat, then FPTP works just fine. Most votes wins is absolutely fair - the most popular candidate is elected.

    The problem is that most voters look to a wider horizon. Legally they vote for the named candidate in the named seat, but many choose to vote based on some wider thing they cann't influence such as who runs the country.

    If the electoral horizon is the UK then FPTP is not a good system because of the nature of the election being 650 individual elections. It is fundamentally undemocratic when looked at nationally for a party winning 35% of the vote to win a thumping majority - or a party winning 12% to fail to win a single seat.

    Fans of FPTP point to the single constituency level fairness as a means to justify the national unfairness. Until and unless we plan how to run a national election then we will never square this circle.

    Why is it unfair that the 12% fail to win a single seat?

    If a club in the Premier League with 12% posession across the season fails to win a game is that unfair?

    If you're starting from the premise that proportionality is fair then you're going to say that PR is fair by a logical truism. Doesn't make you right though. If you want to demonstrate that PR is fair you need to demonstrate WHY proportionality is a good thing.
    No! I say again - democracy is not football.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 65,124
    edited March 22
    Pulpstar said:

    The absolute horror of providing testers with outdoor clothing and snacks.

    https://inews.co.uk/news/sodexo-private-company-covid-test-sites-millions-of-taxpayer-money-snacks-923625

    There are issues with Test and Trace. This is not one of them.

    Outrageous, supplying the testers with water....its up there with complaining about companies who have legitimately taken furlough money, because their owner is wealthy on paper.
  • ChameleonChameleon Posts: 3,328
    edited March 22

    Labour going forwards in London and Scotland, now the Red Wall must be the focus

    Is this where I point out that in 2019 Lab won London 48% to 32%, so that poll represents a 0.5% Lab->Con swing (i.e. no change)?

    In 2017 Lab won 55% to 32%.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,445
    Endillion said:

    Endillion said:

    Endillion said:

    Endillion said:

    Endillion said:

    @Endillion and @Philip_Thompson thought experiment time.

    Let's say under FPTP 650 independent MPs are elected to Parliament.

    Who is the "winner" of that election?

    Well eventually a loose confederation of proto-parties would form. It would have to happen as government is formed from it.
    Well obviously.

    My point is that FPTP works great in a locally orientated election of representatives to a legislature.

    It breaks down when a vast majority of people simply vote on national politics for parties.

    Then you don't get 650 winners. You get 1 winner on 30% of the vote.
    No you don't. You still have 650 MPs. That a majority of locations have chosen MPs of the same party is simply their choice, it could have gone otherwise.
    And yet you still can have 1 winner on 30% of the vote.

    Regardless of how you try and spin it, the ultimate result is that a party with a minority of voters supporting them is proclaimed the "winner" and not just a "winner", usually with complete control.

    That may be worth it for the benefits of "strong" government and the ability to "kick out the party in charge", etc but it's still a fact.
    You don't have 1 winner. You have 650 winners. Every MP counts and the government only gets its bills through if it commands a majority of the house.
    I'm sorry but that's idealised bullsh*t and you know it.
    No it is not. Look at the 2017 Parliament. Heck if over 40 Tory MPs rebel on an issue in this Parliament then votes can be lost even in this Parliament.

    Votes are only won in the House if a majority of the 650 elected MPs vote Aye. MPs can vote however they want, whenever they want, if they're prepared to own the consequences of that.
    This would only be true if there was some relationship between the views of each electorate, and the voting patterns of the MP they send to Parliament. While there might be in theory, in practice the MPs can basically do what they want 98% of the time.
    And they answer to their electorate for doing so.

    If the MP does a bad job then at the next election the voters can pick a new representative to replace them.
    Oh, stop it. I'm nominally on your side in this and you're making it impossible to agree with you. You know as well as the rest of us that it doesn't work that way, most of the time.
    I said can, not will.

    The reality is most MPs don't do an especially bad job representing their MPs precisely because they want to hold their seat. Is life perfect? No, of course not - but the voters have both the option to vote for someone else and the threat of having the option to vote for someone else to keep their MPs in line - that is why democracy works over non-democratic systems.
    I'm unclear who you think on here is advocating for "non-democratic systems", but if that's what you think is the alternative, it explains a few things.
    STV etc is less democratic in my opinion by ensuring the second and third choice get elected too for a constituency. In FPTP the only way to stay in Parliament is to remain the most popular candidate in your constituency, under STV being one of the primary candidates it doesn't matter if you finish first, second or third.
    Yes. Again, I'm on your side on this (nominally).

    My point is that there are clearly quite a lot of scenarios where the system doesn't work as it should, and denying that is pointless and makes you (and, by extension, me) sound dumb.
    Absolutely, no system is perfect. I never said it was.

    Of course there are issues, and when there are having the option to 'kick the bastards out' is important. Life isn't perfect, nothing in life is, so don't take it as me saying the system works perfectly - it works well enough.
    Kicking the bastards out isn't a safety valve for when there are issues - it's a necessary component of a well-functioning system. Indeed, the main problem identified with FPTP is how difficult it can be to get rid of some very bad candidates - albeit, it's unclear which other systems would do better (list-based systems in particular are notorious).

    Take me, for instance. I'm a Tory voter in a constituency with a fairly safe, but moronic, MP, whom I don't like - he was a bit of a No Deal diehard for most of 2019 (for a pro-Remain constituency) and is generally considered to do poorly on local issues. Tory candidates are generally quite difficult to deselect, so how do I get rid of him without replacing him with someone worse?
    There's no such thing as a safe seat in the long term.

    From Labour's heartlands in Scotland, to the red wall, to Tory since the 19th Century Canterbury, the past eleven years should have shown that.

    If a seat doesn't change hands it just means a plurality of voters in the election chose the same option again. They retain the right to change their mind next time.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,509
    edited March 22

    HYUFD said:

    Some good news for Khan and Bailey there.

    Khan would win on the first round, so obviously a good result for him but some consolation for Bailey in that the 28% he is on would beat the 27% Steve Norris got in 2000 in the 1st round, so he would avoid getting the lowest voteshare for any Tory London Mayoral candidate yet
    Is "not as shit as Norris" the only consolation you can find for your guy being an absolutely shite candidate?
    Actually Norris got 29% in the first round in 2004 so technically that should be 'not as shit as Norris in 2000'.

    However no Tory candidate would win across London at the moment, the only chance of beating Khan would have been a well known and popular and competent independent
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 38,754
    MattW said:

    felix said:

    Lunacy in Europe episode 555 - Spain will welcome German tourists over the Easter period while continuing to ban any internal travel to Spanish nationals. Cases in Spain are currently low. Caes in Germany are high.

    Why are Germany allowing non-essential foreign travel? Crazy. In the first wave, they sensibly closed their borders.
    I think Germany is cruising for a bruising.

    AFAICS they are lifting restrictions at a time when COVID infection is increasing when about 91% of their population have not been vaccinated at all. And new variants are around.

    Quite a lot of mortality is probably already booked in, as we found over Christmas.
    I think they’re underestimating the B117 variant. Their rate of cases has overtaken the US and could easily get out of control.
    https://twitter.com/kakape/status/1373702863281651720?s=21
  • CookieCookie Posts: 4,493

    Cookie said:

    Leon said:

    Cookie said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Andy_JS said:
    Meyer has said nothing pro-Orban. he's pointing out the EU has reduced itself to Orban's level. Rachman showing a touch of Strasbourg Syndrome there
    Mary Riddell has a worse case.
    https://twitter.com/maryriddell/status/1373914075692929025?s=21
    There is a real danger here for hardcore Remoaners - ie the 5-10% who are still "backing" the EU over Britain, blaming us not Brussels, hoping our grannies die to save the career of President Macron, and so forth.

    At some point the outraged public will turn on THEM, if they keep this up. Someone like Riddell should just STFU
    At work this morning there was an (online, natch) conversation about the census - one of my teammates asked if anyone else did as he did and put 'European' as nationality. There was no response. I'm slightly curious about this - presumably from the fact he has made this comment he is pretty confident the rest of us share his Europhilia, despite the current situation. (It's a public sector organisation). Maybe he is right.
    I doubt it greatly. But who knows? Need polling.
    I doubt it too. But the confidence in the hardcore Europhiles that almost everyone agrees with them is remarkable.
    It is like the Naga Munchetty flag imbroglio; it wasn't so much the 'I find flags rather gauche' point of view which was remarkable - that's not a view which I'd criticise or find particularly surprising. But I do find surprising the apparent assumption that 'everyone finds flags rather gauche'. Similarly, I don't necessarily find it surprising that someone identifies as 'European' rather than British or English. But I do find it surprising that - even after the last three months - he would assume that everyone else would start from a position of EU = good, UK = bad.
    I agree with Cookie. It's a very common thing which we often see on PB too - people assume that the whole is much like the people they know. Consciously or not, we tend to seek out people who we agree with as our friends, and then they reinforce our prejudices.

    That's why my poker circle (in non-pandemic times) is good for me - it's got dozens of people who I'm on good terms with and have generally very different outlooks - many voted for Brexit, tell dodgy jokes, think of a normal evening as being down the pub with mates, have strong opinions about football, vape like chimneys, etc. It's another world, and not an unpleasant one, just different from us earnest lefties spending our evenings watching foreign movies, debating the situation in the Yemen and pondering the Guardian long reads (I satirise only slightly). None of us bother to object to each others' strange views and outlook, 'cos we're there to play poker and the default setting is mates having a relaxed evening. It's...liberating, and I miss it more than most other restrictions of the pandemic.
    I'd say pb is pretty good for us in that respect too - it's certainly not an echo chamber.
    The only respect in which the denizens of this board can be lulled into thinking that the world thinks like us is on the question of how much people in the real world know or care about politics.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 34,484
    ClippP said:

    Christ, an msp sending a bleaty letter to another party saying they should stand in a constituency just to improve his own chances is about the limpest dick thing I can imagine.
    https://twitter.com/JamesKellyLab/status/1373980723309375493?s=20

    They are playing by the rules which were set up by the..... wait for it! ..... by the Labour Party.

    It seems to me that Mr Kelly is not over-bright.
    Understatement of the century
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,509
    edited March 22

    Endillion said:

    Endillion said:

    Endillion said:

    Endillion said:

    Endillion said:

    @Endillion and @Philip_Thompson thought experiment time.

    Let's say under FPTP 650 independent MPs are elected to Parliament.

    Who is the "winner" of that election?

    Well eventually a loose confederation of proto-parties would form. It would have to happen as government is formed from it.
    Well obviously.

    My point is that FPTP works great in a locally orientated election of representatives to a legislature.

    It breaks down when a vast majority of people simply vote on national politics for parties.

    Then you don't get 650 winners. You get 1 winner on 30% of the vote.
    No you don't. You still have 650 MPs. That a majority of locations have chosen MPs of the same party is simply their choice, it could have gone otherwise.
    And yet you still can have 1 winner on 30% of the vote.

    Regardless of how you try and spin it, the ultimate result is that a party with a minority of voters supporting them is proclaimed the "winner" and not just a "winner", usually with complete control.

    That may be worth it for the benefits of "strong" government and the ability to "kick out the party in charge", etc but it's still a fact.
    You don't have 1 winner. You have 650 winners. Every MP counts and the government only gets its bills through if it commands a majority of the house.
    I'm sorry but that's idealised bullsh*t and you know it.
    No it is not. Look at the 2017 Parliament. Heck if over 40 Tory MPs rebel on an issue in this Parliament then votes can be lost even in this Parliament.

    Votes are only won in the House if a majority of the 650 elected MPs vote Aye. MPs can vote however they want, whenever they want, if they're prepared to own the consequences of that.
    This would only be true if there was some relationship between the views of each electorate, and the voting patterns of the MP they send to Parliament. While there might be in theory, in practice the MPs can basically do what they want 98% of the time.
    And they answer to their electorate for doing so.

    If the MP does a bad job then at the next election the voters can pick a new representative to replace them.
    Oh, stop it. I'm nominally on your side in this and you're making it impossible to agree with you. You know as well as the rest of us that it doesn't work that way, most of the time.
    I said can, not will.

    The reality is most MPs don't do an especially bad job representing their MPs precisely because they want to hold their seat. Is life perfect? No, of course not - but the voters have both the option to vote for someone else and the threat of having the option to vote for someone else to keep their MPs in line - that is why democracy works over non-democratic systems.
    I'm unclear who you think on here is advocating for "non-democratic systems", but if that's what you think is the alternative, it explains a few things.
    STV etc is less democratic in my opinion by ensuring the second and third choice get elected too for a constituency. In FPTP the only way to stay in Parliament is to remain the most popular candidate in your constituency, under STV being one of the primary candidates it doesn't matter if you finish first, second or third.
    Yes. Again, I'm on your side on this (nominally).

    My point is that there are clearly quite a lot of scenarios where the system doesn't work as it should, and denying that is pointless and makes you (and, by extension, me) sound dumb.
    Absolutely, no system is perfect. I never said it was.

    Of course there are issues, and when there are having the option to 'kick the bastards out' is important. Life isn't perfect, nothing in life is, so don't take it as me saying the system works perfectly - it works well enough.
    Kicking the bastards out isn't a safety valve for when there are issues - it's a necessary component of a well-functioning system. Indeed, the main problem identified with FPTP is how difficult it can be to get rid of some very bad candidates - albeit, it's unclear which other systems would do better (list-based systems in particular are notorious).

    Take me, for instance. I'm a Tory voter in a constituency with a fairly safe, but moronic, MP, whom I don't like - he was a bit of a No Deal diehard for most of 2019 (for a pro-Remain constituency) and is generally considered to do poorly on local issues. Tory candidates are generally quite difficult to deselect, so how do I get rid of him without replacing him with someone worse?
    There's no such thing as a safe seat in the long term.

    From Labour's heartlands in Scotland, to the red wall, to Tory since the 19th Century Canterbury, the past eleven years should have shown that.

    If a seat doesn't change hands it just means a plurality of voters in the election chose the same option again. They retain the right to change their mind next time.
    At least 2/3 of Commons seats have been won by the same party UK wide as the general election before though, even in 1997, 2010 or 2019 where the most seats changed hands.

    If you live in a safe seat, party activists will put out one election address there and then shift across to the nearest marginal to do the rest of their leafletting and canvassing,

    If we had PR those 2/3 would see more campaigning at election time to win seats which would be available on the regional top up list even if the constituency was unlikely to change hands
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 52,016
    France 3 day's worth of data:

    https://www.politico.eu/coronavirus-in-europe/


  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 68,492
    Does in touch with his Irish heritage here

    https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/1373749122566590465
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 7,199
    Andy_JS said:

    "French newspapers all turn on Macron over AstraZeneca vaccine blunder: 'F*** YOU!'
    FRENCH newspapers have turned on Emmanuel Macron, branding his Government's decision to put millions of people in Paris and parts of northern France into a fresh lockdown an "admission of failure"."

    https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1412493/France-news-Emmanuel-Macron-Paris-lockdown-latest-AstraZeneca-vaccine-vn

    Shame we're not still in the EU. I'm sure by now the good folk of Europe would be clamouring for Boris to step in and take command. That may or may not be a good thing, but would still do wonders for British prestige. I always knew that Britain's time as the most venerated country in Europe would come. It's a pity impetuous fools like Farage had to come along with their abysmal timing.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 55,699

    Andy_JS said:

    "French newspapers all turn on Macron over AstraZeneca vaccine blunder: 'F*** YOU!'
    FRENCH newspapers have turned on Emmanuel Macron, branding his Government's decision to put millions of people in Paris and parts of northern France into a fresh lockdown an "admission of failure"."

    https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1412493/France-news-Emmanuel-Macron-Paris-lockdown-latest-AstraZeneca-vaccine-vn

    Shame we're not still in the EU. I'm sure by now the good folk of Europe would be clamouring for Boris to step in and take command. That may or may not be a good thing, but would still do wonders for British prestige. I always knew that Britain's time as the most venerated country in Europe would come. It's a pity impetuous fools like Farage had to come along with their abysmal timing.
    Na, they would have solved the problem by appropriating British vaccines... exactly like what they are proposing to do now.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,445
    HYUFD said:

    Endillion said:

    Endillion said:

    Endillion said:

    Endillion said:

    Endillion said:

    @Endillion and @Philip_Thompson thought experiment time.

    Let's say under FPTP 650 independent MPs are elected to Parliament.

    Who is the "winner" of that election?

    Well eventually a loose confederation of proto-parties would form. It would have to happen as government is formed from it.
    Well obviously.

    My point is that FPTP works great in a locally orientated election of representatives to a legislature.

    It breaks down when a vast majority of people simply vote on national politics for parties.

    Then you don't get 650 winners. You get 1 winner on 30% of the vote.
    No you don't. You still have 650 MPs. That a majority of locations have chosen MPs of the same party is simply their choice, it could have gone otherwise.
    And yet you still can have 1 winner on 30% of the vote.

    Regardless of how you try and spin it, the ultimate result is that a party with a minority of voters supporting them is proclaimed the "winner" and not just a "winner", usually with complete control.

    That may be worth it for the benefits of "strong" government and the ability to "kick out the party in charge", etc but it's still a fact.
    You don't have 1 winner. You have 650 winners. Every MP counts and the government only gets its bills through if it commands a majority of the house.
    I'm sorry but that's idealised bullsh*t and you know it.
    No it is not. Look at the 2017 Parliament. Heck if over 40 Tory MPs rebel on an issue in this Parliament then votes can be lost even in this Parliament.

    Votes are only won in the House if a majority of the 650 elected MPs vote Aye. MPs can vote however they want, whenever they want, if they're prepared to own the consequences of that.
    This would only be true if there was some relationship between the views of each electorate, and the voting patterns of the MP they send to Parliament. While there might be in theory, in practice the MPs can basically do what they want 98% of the time.
    And they answer to their electorate for doing so.

    If the MP does a bad job then at the next election the voters can pick a new representative to replace them.
    Oh, stop it. I'm nominally on your side in this and you're making it impossible to agree with you. You know as well as the rest of us that it doesn't work that way, most of the time.
    I said can, not will.

    The reality is most MPs don't do an especially bad job representing their MPs precisely because they want to hold their seat. Is life perfect? No, of course not - but the voters have both the option to vote for someone else and the threat of having the option to vote for someone else to keep their MPs in line - that is why democracy works over non-democratic systems.
    I'm unclear who you think on here is advocating for "non-democratic systems", but if that's what you think is the alternative, it explains a few things.
    STV etc is less democratic in my opinion by ensuring the second and third choice get elected too for a constituency. In FPTP the only way to stay in Parliament is to remain the most popular candidate in your constituency, under STV being one of the primary candidates it doesn't matter if you finish first, second or third.
    Yes. Again, I'm on your side on this (nominally).

    My point is that there are clearly quite a lot of scenarios where the system doesn't work as it should, and denying that is pointless and makes you (and, by extension, me) sound dumb.
    Absolutely, no system is perfect. I never said it was.

    Of course there are issues, and when there are having the option to 'kick the bastards out' is important. Life isn't perfect, nothing in life is, so don't take it as me saying the system works perfectly - it works well enough.
    Kicking the bastards out isn't a safety valve for when there are issues - it's a necessary component of a well-functioning system. Indeed, the main problem identified with FPTP is how difficult it can be to get rid of some very bad candidates - albeit, it's unclear which other systems would do better (list-based systems in particular are notorious).

    Take me, for instance. I'm a Tory voter in a constituency with a fairly safe, but moronic, MP, whom I don't like - he was a bit of a No Deal diehard for most of 2019 (for a pro-Remain constituency) and is generally considered to do poorly on local issues. Tory candidates are generally quite difficult to deselect, so how do I get rid of him without replacing him with someone worse?
    There's no such thing as a safe seat in the long term.

    From Labour's heartlands in Scotland, to the red wall, to Tory since the 19th Century Canterbury, the past eleven years should have shown that.

    If a seat doesn't change hands it just means a plurality of voters in the election chose the same option again. They retain the right to change their mind next time.
    At least 2/3 of seats have been won by the same party UK wide as the election before though, even in 1997, 2010 or 2019.

    If you live in a safe seat, party activists will put out one election address there and then shift across to the nearest marginal to do the rest of their leafletting and canvassing,

    If we had PR those 2/3 would see more campaigning at election time to win seats which would be available on the regional top up list even if the constituency was unlikely to change hands
    That's why I said in the long term.

    The 1/3 that see more campaigning changes from one election to the next too.

    If the result in an area is a foregone conclusion then that's just because the voters there have not changed their mind. I'm not expecting the Tories to be competitive in Walton, but constituencies near it just down the East Lancs road or along the M62 or M6 that were safe red are now blue. Times change.
  • Fysics_TeacherFysics_Teacher Posts: 5,611

    Andy_JS said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Floater said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Breaking news:

    Welsh supermarket shoppers can now buy Barbara Cartland novels.

    A nation rejoices .... or not
    Heard Drakeford speaking the other day. Very impressed with his nuanced and intelligent use of language.
    Drakeford is universally disliked. He closed the pubs (as a teetotaller himself) whilst Johnson (and the Conservatives) invented, procured and vaccinated the population. Very much the view on the ground. May is going to see Tories with most seats.
    He's a teetotaller? Never knew that. Makes a lot of sense

    There is a puritan edge to governance in Wales. Puritanism, as in: "the haunting fear that someone, somewhere may be happy"
    It's amazing how long-lasting culture is. You go to Massachusetts and everyone there thinks of themselves as incredibly modern, but as a British person you can feel the puritanism in the air almost from the moment you step into the airport.

    The fact that 20 year olds aren't allowed to drink beer, and so on.
    I once went into a bar in the depths of New England. There was a sign saying only two drinks would be served to each customer.
    At Twickenham the limit is four pints per person per visit to the bar, but I think that is because of the risk of spillage rather than anything else.
This discussion has been closed.