Will GE2024 produce a majority seats winner without a majority of votes? – politicalbetting.com
Will GE2024 produce a majority seats winner without a majority of votes? – politicalbetting.com
The report notes:
Comments
-
In 2015, First Past the Post gave us the most disproportionate election to date with a majority government secured with under 37 percent of the vote share
Err... Did they miss 2005?8 -
35:32:22. I was going to make a joke about "the closest we've had to a three-way in Parliament" but I decided it was too early.2
-
Lessons were well understood I’d say; why on Earth would either Cons or Labour press to change a system that is so clearly tipped in their favour?
The public are suspicious of electoral reform in any case. FPTP is the devil we know.1 -
The chronic priapism demonstrated by some members (ha) in recent times suggests that it’s never too early for a parliamentary three-way.mwadams said:35:32:22. I was going to make a joke about "the closest we've had to a three-way in Parliament" but I decided it was too early.
1 -
Actually it's much worse than Stop the War. They may be misguided but at least are following some kind of principle. The Trumpers are acting out of pure cynicism.SouthamObserver said:Given the behaviour of the Republicans in Congress, the widespread support for a Trump presidency among Tory MPs and other prominent Tories is becoming increasingly . It is now clear that Trump and the GOP are set on betraying Ukraine and, in doing so, threatening fundamental UK security and economic interests. I find the lack of scrutiny around this astonishing. Backing Trump is no better than backing Stop the War.
4 -
1997 says hello.Ghedebrav said:Lessons were well understood I’d say; why on Earth would either Cons or Labour press to change a system that is so clearly tipped in their favour?
The public are suspicious of electoral reform in any case. FPTP is the devil we know.
Both major parties would see it in terms of empowering the extremes. Reform would enter Parliament in a sizeable way, and the Greens would become Hard Left Labour and take a similar slice.0 -
On topic
If the Conservative constituency offices in marginal seats can allocate their 3 million ex-Pat voters expediently we could see a Con majority with Labour several percentage points ahead on the popular vote.1 -
No, the most disproportionate election to date was the solid majority Tony Blair won in 2005 with only 35% of the vote.4
-
On the plus side, it would probably abolish the Lib Dems, so not all bad.Malmesbury said:
1997 says hello.Ghedebrav said:Lessons were well understood I’d say; why on Earth would either Cons or Labour press to change a system that is so clearly tipped in their favour?
The public are suspicious of electoral reform in any case. FPTP is the devil we know.
Both major parties would see it in terms of empowering the extremes. Reform would enter Parliament in a sizeable way, and the Greens would become Hard Left Labour and take a similar slice.0 -
Proving FPTP is inequitable.Casino_Royale said:No, the most disproportionate election to date was the solid majority Tony Blair won in 2005 with only 35% of the vote.
2 -
Almost certainly I'd have thought. I think once a party gets beyond 40 and certainly 45, it's fine that they have a majority tbh. I think PR systems can produce majorities on lower than 50% if smaller parties don't meet "threshold" criteria. In the knesset this is 3.25% so the majority threshold transposing our GE2019 results to that system would be (And it's not exact due to speaker, regionality and so on) ~ 47%.1
-
It probably also suggests that the Electoral Reform Society isn't entirely political neutral. I think there are arguments for and against first past the post, but it amuses me that it tends to be people on the Left of politics who are most keen on changing the system. They would be horrified if we did go to PR and it produced a result they really didn't like.Mexicanpete said:
Proving FPTP is inequitable.Casino_Royale said:No, the most disproportionate election to date was the solid majority Tony Blair won in 2005 with only 35% of the vote.
1 -
One can easily imagine each of the major parties splitting into their ideological parts, even the Greens.Malmesbury said:
1997 says hello.Ghedebrav said:Lessons were well understood I’d say; why on Earth would either Cons or Labour press to change a system that is so clearly tipped in their favour?
The public are suspicious of electoral reform in any case. FPTP is the devil we know.
Both major parties would see it in terms of empowering the extremes. Reform would enter Parliament in a sizeable way, and the Greens would become Hard Left Labour and take a similar slice.0 -
FPTP already empowers the extremes, and on occasion gives them the prospect of governing.Malmesbury said:
1997 says hello.Ghedebrav said:Lessons were well understood I’d say; why on Earth would either Cons or Labour press to change a system that is so clearly tipped in their favour?
The public are suspicious of electoral reform in any case. FPTP is the devil we know.
Both major parties would see it in terms of empowering the extremes. Reform would enter Parliament in a sizeable way, and the Greens would become Hard Left Labour and take a similar slice.
That really isn't an argument for sticking with FPTP.
What you actually mean is that the two big parties see it as a threat to their duopoly.5 -
I disagree. Con/UKIP would have been fine by me in 2017. It wouldn't have represented me, but it represented the majority, so happy days.tlg86 said:
It probably also suggests that the Electoral Reform Society isn't entirely political neutral. I think there are arguments for and against first past the post, but it amuses me that it tends to be people on the Left of politics who are most keen on changing the system. They would be horrified if we did go to PR and it produced a result they really didn't like.Mexicanpete said:
Proving FPTP is inequitable.Casino_Royale said:No, the most disproportionate election to date was the solid majority Tony Blair won in 2005 with only 35% of the vote.
3 -
Why do i get the impression that the authors of the report were ok with that?Casino_Royale said:No, the most disproportionate election to date was the solid majority Tony Blair won in 2005 with only 35% of the vote.
The bigger problem with FPTP in recent times is that it has provided messy Parliaments instead of the democratic dictatorship that it is supposed to. 2010 and 2017 were both examples of that although the first was fixed by the Coalition. 2019 was a return to form and I think this time, particularly with the collapse of the SNP, will be likewise.4 -
If Con or Lab ever changed the voting system to PR they would both splinter into several different parties and would no longer function in their own terms... Hence neither of them will ever recommend ditching FPTP.
2 -
It's really really poor that they missed such a recent example that totally obviates their pronouncement.tlg86 said:In 2015, First Past the Post gave us the most disproportionate election to date with a majority government secured with under 37 percent of the vote share
Err... Did they miss 2005?2 -
From article: 'so beneficial to the.'
You can't leave me hanging like that. It is like reading an Agatha Christie novel only to find the last page has been ripped out.0 -
If I were ruler for a day, the first thing I would change would be the voting system.
FPTP is responsible for many ills, but sadly I have to agree with Mike. Ain't gonna change.1 -
Israel is hardly a good example for us to follow, least of all in its voting sysem.Pulpstar said:Almost certainly I'd have thought. I think once a party gets beyond 40 and certainly 45, it's fine that they have a majority tbh. I think PR systems can produce majorities on lower than 50% if smaller parties don't meet "threshold" criteria. In the knesset this is 3.25% so the majority threshold transposing our GE2019 results to that system would be (And it's not exact due to speaker, regionality and so on) ~ 47%.
0 -
Did I, at an point in my post say it was ?ClippP said:
Israel is hardly a good example for us to follow, least of all in its voting sysem.Pulpstar said:Almost certainly I'd have thought. I think once a party gets beyond 40 and certainly 45, it's fine that they have a majority tbh. I think PR systems can produce majorities on lower than 50% if smaller parties don't meet "threshold" criteria. In the knesset this is 3.25% so the majority threshold transposing our GE2019 results to that system would be (And it's not exact due to speaker, regionality and so on) ~ 47%.
0 -
If Clegg had held out for a change to the voting system without a referendum before agreeing to form the coalition IN 2010, I wonder what Cameron and Osborne would have done? @TheScreamingEagles0
-
I've liked, because it is true it would happen in my opinion and it is possibly true that is the reason, but isn't also a possibility that the Social Democrats and Socialists might enjoy not having to compromise with one another and same for the One nation Tories and the Right wingers. Having said that once they form alliances in Govt they will have to do so. The only uncertainty would be who they compromise with. It might be different groups.GIN1138 said:If Con or Lab ever changed the voting system to PR they would both splinter into several different parties and would no longer function in their own terms... Hence neither of them will ever recommend ditching FPTP.
2 -
The simple alternative vote change was rejected by the voters in a referendum not long ago. (As it happens it is the only change I support). The desire for change is not there. There are downsides with all systems. The question is how does a particular society develop in respect of dealing with the up and down sides of its democracy.
Perhaps most people think, however vaguely, that the deals and horse trading of PR etc in whatever form will multiply the power of Galloways and Lozzas and reduce the influence of dull centrists, which is where most of us are. I think they are right.0 -
I don't know, perhaps you have a leftist conspiracy chip on your shoulder?DavidL said:
Why do i get the impression that the authors of the report were ok with that?Casino_Royale said:No, the most disproportionate election to date was the solid majority Tony Blair won in 2005 with only 35% of the vote.
[snipped]
Seriously though, I don't get that impression. PR would not of course have given Blair a majority government in 2005. Probably a Lab-Lib coalition assuming same parties, but then many of us assumed 2010 would lead to a Lab-Lib coalition if the Conservatives failed to get a majority.
I do, though, take issue with the last sentence of that quote - "And in 2019 a huge majority was delivered with the difference between a hung parliament and large majority resting within a polling margin of error." There is no polling error in a GE - everyone gets the chance to vote, there is no polling error. Changes within pre-election sample poll error might have led to different outcomes, but the result on the day was clear. As was the result in the Brexit referendum - the margin would be impossible to call with traditional sample polling as it was too close, but there's no sampling error in a national poll.2 -
I’d say more a spit roast with the hapless LDs between the hulking brutes of Lab & Cons.Ghedebrav said:
The chronic priapism demonstrated by some members (ha) in recent times suggests that it’s never too early for a parliamentary three-way.mwadams said:35:32:22. I was going to make a joke about "the closest we've had to a three-way in Parliament" but I decided it was too early.
Since I’ve seen quite a few PBer describe the coalition years as the best government of their adult lives I’m surprised there aren’t more fans of the messy but representative compromises that PR would likely bring.1 -
a
It's certainly an example of how PR can't, *by itself*, deliver a polity that is less extreme and more representative of the people.ClippP said:
Israel is hardly a good example for us to follow, least of all in its voting sysem.Pulpstar said:Almost certainly I'd have thought. I think once a party gets beyond 40 and certainly 45, it's fine that they have a majority tbh. I think PR systems can produce majorities on lower than 50% if smaller parties don't meet "threshold" criteria. In the knesset this is 3.25% so the majority threshold transposing our GE2019 results to that system would be (And it's not exact due to speaker, regionality and so on) ~ 47%.
0 -
If you were ruler for a day Peter would you change the voting system so you became ruler for life and became our beloved benign dictator?Peter_the_Punter said:If I were ruler for a day, the first thing I would change would be the voting system.
FPTP is responsible for many ills, but sadly I have to agree with Mike. Ain't gonna change.1 -
No coalition if that was for general elections.GIN1138 said:If Clegg had held out for a change to the voting system without a referendum before agreeing to form the coalition IN 2010, I wonder what Cameron and Osborne would have done? @TheScreamingEagles
They would have allowed STV for council elections though without a referendum.1 -
FPT
Backs up my view that the next election will be 1974 rather than 1997. Of course,once in power SKS might surprise the electorate on the up side, as Wilson did between 64 and 66, but I really doubt it...Scott_xP said:@MattChorley
EXCLUSIVE:
Britain has delivered an overwhelming thumbs down to Sunak and Starmer in what is shaping up to be the “none of the above” election. On key questions, “neither” wins.
New @YouGov poll for @TimesRadio - The Election Station.0 -
Me too. And UKIP should have had much more representation in 2015.Mexicanpete said:
I disagree. Con/UKIP would have been fine by me in 2017. It wouldn't have represented me, but it represented the majority, so happy days.tlg86 said:
It probably also suggests that the Electoral Reform Society isn't entirely political neutral. I think there are arguments for and against first past the post, but it amuses me that it tends to be people on the Left of politics who are most keen on changing the system. They would be horrified if we did go to PR and it produced a result they really didn't like.Mexicanpete said:
Proving FPTP is inequitable.Casino_Royale said:No, the most disproportionate election to date was the solid majority Tony Blair won in 2005 with only 35% of the vote.
0 -
Then why mention it? With STV in multi-member constituencies, the target is a respectable percentage of the vote in any given seat - possibly about 20%. Setting minimal percentages on a national basis simply operates against the Independent or Maveric candidate. Such views should be represented in Parliament, if they win enough support.Pulpstar said:
Did I, at an point in my post say it was ?ClippP said:
Israel is hardly a good example for us to follow, least of all in its voting sysem.Pulpstar said:Almost certainly I'd have thought. I think once a party gets beyond 40 and certainly 45, it's fine that they have a majority tbh. I think PR systems can produce majorities on lower than 50% if smaller parties don't meet "threshold" criteria. In the knesset this is 3.25% so the majority threshold transposing our GE2019 results to that system would be (And it's not exact due to speaker, regionality and so on) ~ 47%.
1 -
Interesting. Thanks, TSE.TheScreamingEagles said:
No coalition if that was for general elections.GIN1138 said:If Clegg had held out for a change to the voting system without a referendum before agreeing to form the coalition IN 2010, I wonder what Cameron and Osborne would have done? @TheScreamingEagles
They would have allowed STV for council elections though without a referendum.0 -
First PR system that sprang to mind with an element that means a sub 50% majority would be theoretically possible.ClippP said:
Then why mention it?Pulpstar said:
Did I, at an point in my post say it was ?ClippP said:
Israel is hardly a good example for us to follow, least of all in its voting sysem.Pulpstar said:Almost certainly I'd have thought. I think once a party gets beyond 40 and certainly 45, it's fine that they have a majority tbh. I think PR systems can produce majorities on lower than 50% if smaller parties don't meet "threshold" criteria. In the knesset this is 3.25% so the majority threshold transposing our GE2019 results to that system would be (And it's not exact due to speaker, regionality and so on) ~ 47%.
0 -
Yes, I think some of us tried working out how close Corbyn came to being PM in 2017 - it was probably less than 20,000 votes in the right seats - but 2019 was a slam dunk.Selebian said:
I don't know, perhaps you have a leftist conspiracy chip on your shoulder?DavidL said:
Why do i get the impression that the authors of the report were ok with that?Casino_Royale said:No, the most disproportionate election to date was the solid majority Tony Blair won in 2005 with only 35% of the vote.
[snipped]
Seriously though, I don't get that impression. PR would not of course have given Blair a majority government in 2005. Probably a Lab-Lib coalition assuming same parties, but then many of us assumed 2010 would lead to a Lab-Lib coalition if the Conservatives failed to get a majority.
I do, though, take issue with the last sentence of that quote - "And in 2019 a huge majority was delivered with the difference between a hung parliament and large majority resting within a polling margin of error." There is no polling error in a GE - everyone gets the chance to vote, there is no polling error. Changes within pre-election sample poll error might have led to different outcomes, but the result on the day was clear. As was the result in the Brexit referendum - the margin would be impossible to call with traditional sample polling as it was too close, but there's no sampling error in a national poll.1 -
STV is not proportional.ClippP said:
Then why mention it? With STV in multi-member constituencies, the target is a respectable percentage of the vote in any given seat - possibly about 20%. Setting minimal percentages on a national basis simply operates against the Independent or Maveric candidate. Such views should be represented in Parliament, if they win enough support.Pulpstar said:
Did I, at an point in my post say it was ?ClippP said:
Israel is hardly a good example for us to follow, least of all in its voting sysem.Pulpstar said:Almost certainly I'd have thought. I think once a party gets beyond 40 and certainly 45, it's fine that they have a majority tbh. I think PR systems can produce majorities on lower than 50% if smaller parties don't meet "threshold" criteria. In the knesset this is 3.25% so the majority threshold transposing our GE2019 results to that system would be (And it's not exact due to speaker, regionality and so on) ~ 47%.
0 -
The words "crooked duo" appear to have been lost from the end of the lead?0
-
AV Plus would have had the potential to be less proportionate. It is good it fell.Ghedebrav said:Lessons were well understood I’d say; why on Earth would either Cons or Labour press to change a system that is so clearly tipped in their favour?
The public are suspicious of electoral reform in any case. FPTP is the devil we know.1 -
Yes, they'd probably split, I guess (in a very amicable LD kind of way). Orange-bookers combining with some sane, liberal Tories (if there are any left) and the more social democratic faction maybe joining with some from Labour on the more liberal side. Both LD parties would find it easy enough to work together in coalition and probably, respectively, with Conservative and Labour. If it happened now, then the liberal-centre-right group could become a major party with sane Tories. Liberal centre-left probably more minor assuming Starmerist Labour stayed fairly whole except for shedding a few on the left. My natural instinct is for LD, but the breakup would be a price worth paying for voting reform.tlg86 said:
On the plus side, it would probably abolish the Lib Dems, so not all bad.Malmesbury said:
1997 says hello.Ghedebrav said:Lessons were well understood I’d say; why on Earth would either Cons or Labour press to change a system that is so clearly tipped in their favour?
The public are suspicious of electoral reform in any case. FPTP is the devil we know.
Both major parties would see it in terms of empowering the extremes. Reform would enter Parliament in a sizeable way, and the Greens would become Hard Left Labour and take a similar slice.
We have Dutch friends and it's fascinating talking to them around (Dutch) election time. Weighing up the detailed policies of two or three parties that they actually like and ultimately choosing the one that most closely aligns to their priorities, rather than just voting for B because they're really fed up with A.
ETA: Or the post PR landscape might look quite differnt to the above, who knows? And we'll probably, unfortunately, never get to find out because of the vested interest of winners under FPTF in keeping FPTP
3 -
It's much more proportional.tlg86 said:
STV is not proportional.ClippP said:
Then why mention it? With STV in multi-member constituencies, the target is a respectable percentage of the vote in any given seat - possibly about 20%. Setting minimal percentages on a national basis simply operates against the Independent or Maveric candidate. Such views should be represented in Parliament, if they win enough support.Pulpstar said:
Did I, at an point in my post say it was ?ClippP said:
Israel is hardly a good example for us to follow, least of all in its voting sysem.Pulpstar said:Almost certainly I'd have thought. I think once a party gets beyond 40 and certainly 45, it's fine that they have a majority tbh. I think PR systems can produce majorities on lower than 50% if smaller parties don't meet "threshold" criteria. In the knesset this is 3.25% so the majority threshold transposing our GE2019 results to that system would be (And it's not exact due to speaker, regionality and so on) ~ 47%.
And, strictly of course, no system is (or can be) completely proportional, and even those that aim at such generally have some sort of threshold below which a vote tally does not get anyone elected, for example the 5% used in Germany.1 -
Not all PBers were born before 1992 ... Yes, the indignation at Westminster having required Holyrood, Cardiff and Stormont to suffer representative compromise but threatened with exactly the same is quite something.Theuniondivvie said:
I’d say more a spit roast with the hapless LDs between the hulking brutes of Lab & Cons.Ghedebrav said:
The chronic priapism demonstrated by some members (ha) in recent times suggests that it’s never too early for a parliamentary three-way.mwadams said:35:32:22. I was going to make a joke about "the closest we've had to a three-way in Parliament" but I decided it was too early.
Since I’ve seen quite a few PBer describe the coalition years as the best government of their adult lives I’m surprised there aren’t more fans of the messy but representative compromises that PR would likely bring.1 -
Con and Lab are solutions to the FPTP electoral system. Sooner or later, under a PR system, they would cease to exist because they would no longer be required.
It's hard to see whether that would be a good thing or not, and there are bound to be unexpected consequences from what follows.
From my POV the Conservative party today is at least three parties, the Labour party is at least two as are the Lib Dems.1 -
The trouble is the Lib Dems committed to a referendum on a voting system they had never supported!GIN1138 said:If Clegg had held out for a change to the voting system without a referendum before agreeing to form the coalition IN 2010, I wonder what Cameron and Osborne would have done? @TheScreamingEagles
And surely 2005 was more unrepresentative than 2015? Funny they don't mention that one! That's the trouble with the ERS. It's basically a left of centre organisation. Which is fine if you think all the advocates for electoral reform will be on the left.0 -
Of course it's not neutral.tlg86 said:
It probably also suggests that the Electoral Reform Society isn't entirely political neutral. I think there are arguments for and against first past the post, but it amuses me that it tends to be people on the Left of politics who are most keen on changing the system. They would be horrified if we did go to PR and it produced a result they really didn't like.Mexicanpete said:
Proving FPTP is inequitable.Casino_Royale said:No, the most disproportionate election to date was the solid majority Tony Blair won in 2005 with only 35% of the vote.
0 -
I think the LD base being what it was then they had to gamble on a change to the Westminster system, no matter how long the odds.TheScreamingEagles said:
No coalition if that was for general elections.GIN1138 said:If Clegg had held out for a change to the voting system without a referendum before agreeing to form the coalition IN 2010, I wonder what Cameron and Osborne would have done? @TheScreamingEagles
They would have allowed STV for council elections though without a referendum.
They wouldn't accept a deal on the basis of anything else.0 -
"and it has been a long time since either the Tories or LAB were recording shares of 50% or more." 27th October 1931 according to Wikipedia !
OK the wartime national Gov't overwhelmingly likely had > 50% support but it was never tested for obvious reasons.1 -
a
I have the perfect voting system. It combines FPTP and *all* the systems of PR.kjh said:
If you were ruler for a day Peter would you change the voting system so you became ruler for life and became our beloved benign dictator?Peter_the_Punter said:If I were ruler for a day, the first thing I would change would be the voting system.
FPTP is responsible for many ills, but sadly I have to agree with Mike. Ain't gonna change.0 -
Surely some genius has suggested a PR system for England/UK would kill (insert political bogey man of choice) stone dead?Carnyx said:
Not all PBers were born before 1992 ... Yes, the indignation at Westminster having required Holyrood, Cardiff and Stormont to suffer representative compromise but threatened with exactly the same is quite something.Theuniondivvie said:
I’d say more a spit roast with the hapless LDs between the hulking brutes of Lab & Cons.Ghedebrav said:
The chronic priapism demonstrated by some members (ha) in recent times suggests that it’s never too early for a parliamentary three-way.mwadams said:35:32:22. I was going to make a joke about "the closest we've had to a three-way in Parliament" but I decided it was too early.
Since I’ve seen quite a few PBer describe the coalition years as the best government of their adult lives I’m surprised there aren’t more fans of the messy but representative compromises that PR would likely bring.1 -
I'm on the left of politics and I don't care if it produces policies I don't like. The gains are worth it.tlg86 said:
It probably also suggests that the Electoral Reform Society isn't entirely political neutral. I think there are arguments for and against first past the post, but it amuses me that it tends to be people on the Left of politics who are most keen on changing the system. They would be horrified if we did go to PR and it produced a result they really didn't like.Mexicanpete said:
Proving FPTP is inequitable.Casino_Royale said:No, the most disproportionate election to date was the solid majority Tony Blair won in 2005 with only 35% of the vote.
7 -
Just been announced; Kwasi Kwarteng not to stand again.1
-
Yes. I think most are - which makes the fact that so many Tories are supporting Trump even more inexplicable.FF43 said:
Actually it's much worse than Stop the War. They may be misguided but at least are following some kind of principle. The Trumpers are acting out of pure cynicism.SouthamObserver said:Given the behaviour of the Republicans in Congress, the widespread support for a Trump presidency among Tory MPs and other prominent Tories is becoming increasingly . It is now clear that Trump and the GOP are set on betraying Ukraine and, in doing so, threatening fundamental UK security and economic interests. I find the lack of scrutiny around this astonishing. Backing Trump is no better than backing Stop the War.
0 -
Mr. Punter, what are the gains that outweigh policies you don't like?0
-
In his war memoirs Churchill stated that he thought the wartime government was the best and most talented the nation had ever enjoyed, or was ever likely to enjoy.Pulpstar said:"and it has been a long time since either the Tories or LAB were recording shares of 50% or more." 27th October 1931 according to Wikipedia !
OK the wartime national Gov't overwhelmingly likely had > 50% support but it was never tested for obvious reasons.
Since some of its most prominent members were extremely left wing, that is quite an endorsement.1 -
Reform UK are very pro PR.tlg86 said:
It probably also suggests that the Electoral Reform Society isn't entirely political neutral. I think there are arguments for and against first past the post, but it amuses me that it tends to be people on the Left of politics who are most keen on changing the system. They would be horrified if we did go to PR and it produced a result they really didn't like.Mexicanpete said:
Proving FPTP is inequitable.Casino_Royale said:No, the most disproportionate election to date was the solid majority Tony Blair won in 2005 with only 35% of the vote.
From their manifesto
0 -
It's easy to predict that this or that party would splinter under PP, but we underestimate the traction, with both politicians and voters, of the existing long-established brands. I suspect this oft-predicted splintering, at least in a dramatic way, is much less likely than we think.kjh said:
I've liked, because it is true it would happen in my opinion and it is possibly true that is the reason, but isn't also a possibility that the Social Democrats and Socialists might enjoy not having to compromise with one another and same for the One nation Tories and the Right wingers. Having said that once they form alliances in Govt they will have to do so. The only uncertainty would be who they compromise with. It might be different groups.GIN1138 said:If Con or Lab ever changed the voting system to PR they would both splinter into several different parties and would no longer function in their own terms... Hence neither of them will ever recommend ditching FPTP.
It's clear that the current system forces choice between the two larger parties, not just among voters but also among those seeking political careers. Many Tory and Labour politicians have chosen their allegiance as 'least worst' and there are tons of people who started out as centre party supporters but jumped ship one way or the other when their student political activity got them thinking about a possible political career, from Peter Hain through Liz Truss and many many others.
Political organisations to the left of Labour and right of the Tories already exist, and should possible careers open up as politicians within those, then we'd move toward a five-party system, with some Socialist and UKIP/Reform type parties on the extremes. This would change the nature of Labour (more social democratic) and LibDems (more orange book), and its likely that the LibDems would retain their political space at poll ratings closer to the current than historical ones. In normal times you'd expect the Conservatives to continue as some sort of establishment/christian democrat type party, but given current turmoil it's equally possible that the currently homeless one nation Tories seek careers within a rejuvenated centre party.
Whether environmentalism is sufficient branding to allow space for a separate Green party is an interesting question; in Germany it does, but it's equally possible that the Greens might emerge as the spiritual home for the corbynites.
1 -
Labour got 54% of the seats; The Tories and LibDems between them got 54% of the votes.FrankBooth said:
The trouble is the Lib Dems committed to a referendum on a voting system they had never supported!GIN1138 said:If Clegg had held out for a change to the voting system without a referendum before agreeing to form the coalition IN 2010, I wonder what Cameron and Osborne would have done? @TheScreamingEagles
And surely 2005 was more unrepresentative than 2015? Funny they don't mention that one! That's the trouble with the ERS. It's basically a left of centre organisation. Which is fine if you think all the advocates for electoral reform will be on the left.0 -
https://twitter.com/electoralreform/status/1754799602224521628
Clarification that 2015 was the "most disproportionate result" because Ukip got screwed rather than the Tories doing especially well.0 -
I find your comment on your Dutch friends interesting. At the last German election I was thinking I could genuinely have voted for any of SPD, Green or FDP. None of them were a good fit for me but all had merits. Probably not CDU, but I wouldn't rule them out at a different time. And whatever I chose, my vote would have counted. Unlike here, where how I vote at the next election will not make one jot of difference to the result in my constituency or whoever ends up in government afterwards.Selebian said:
Yes, they'd probably split, I guess (in a very amicable LD kind of way). Orange-bookers combining with some sane, liberal Tories (if there are any left) and the more social democratic faction maybe joining with some from Labour on the more liberal side. Both LD parties would find it easy enough to work together in coalition and probably, respectively, with Conservative and Labour. If it happened now, then the liberal-centre-right group could become a major party with sane Tories. Liberal centre-left probably more minor assuming Starmerist Labour stayed fairly whole except for shedding a few on the left. My natural instinct is for LD, but the breakup would be a price worth paying for voting reform.tlg86 said:
On the plus side, it would probably abolish the Lib Dems, so not all bad.Malmesbury said:
1997 says hello.Ghedebrav said:Lessons were well understood I’d say; why on Earth would either Cons or Labour press to change a system that is so clearly tipped in their favour?
The public are suspicious of electoral reform in any case. FPTP is the devil we know.
Both major parties would see it in terms of empowering the extremes. Reform would enter Parliament in a sizeable way, and the Greens would become Hard Left Labour and take a similar slice.
We have Dutch friends and it's fascinating talking to them around (Dutch) election time. Weighing up the detailed policies of two or three parties that they actually like and ultimately choosing the one that most closely aligns to their priorities, rather than just voting for B because they're really fed up with A.
ETA: Or the post PR landscape might look quite differnt to the above, who knows? And we'll probably, unfortunately, never get to find out because of the vested interest of winners under FPTF in keeping FPTP1 -
Have YouGov published the data for that poll on 2019 Cons being more/less likely to vote Tory if Sunak were replaced by Boris/Cameron/Kemi do you know?TheScreamingEagles said:
No coalition if that was for general elections.GIN1138 said:If Clegg had held out for a change to the voting system without a referendum before agreeing to form the coalition IN 2010, I wonder what Cameron and Osborne would have done? @TheScreamingEagles
They would have allowed STV for council elections though without a referendum.
0 -
Yet UKIP, I believe, were not. I seem to recall hearing little complaint from them when they achieved 15% of the national vote and returned 1 MP.Barnesian said:
Reform UK are very pro PR.tlg86 said:
It probably also suggests that the Electoral Reform Society isn't entirely political neutral. I think there are arguments for and against first past the post, but it amuses me that it tends to be people on the Left of politics who are most keen on changing the system. They would be horrified if we did go to PR and it produced a result they really didn't like.Mexicanpete said:
Proving FPTP is inequitable.Casino_Royale said:No, the most disproportionate election to date was the solid majority Tony Blair won in 2005 with only 35% of the vote.
0 -
All rather academic. FPP is going nowhere: both big parties oppose PR. Why would they change a system that favours them?0
-
No, UKIP too, were.Peter_the_Punter said:
Yet UKIP, I believe, were not. I seem to recall hearing little complaint from them when they achieved 15% of the national vote and returned 1 MP.Barnesian said:
Reform UK are very pro PR.tlg86 said:
It probably also suggests that the Electoral Reform Society isn't entirely political neutral. I think there are arguments for and against first past the post, but it amuses me that it tends to be people on the Left of politics who are most keen on changing the system. They would be horrified if we did go to PR and it produced a result they really didn't like.Mexicanpete said:
Proving FPTP is inequitable.Casino_Royale said:No, the most disproportionate election to date was the solid majority Tony Blair won in 2005 with only 35% of the vote.
2 -
People on the right apparently have a special ability to read the minds of people on the left.Peter_the_Punter said:
I'm on the left of politics and I don't care if it produces policies I don't like. The gains are worth it.tlg86 said:
It probably also suggests that the Electoral Reform Society isn't entirely political neutral. I think there are arguments for and against first past the post, but it amuses me that it tends to be people on the Left of politics who are most keen on changing the system. They would be horrified if we did go to PR and it produced a result they really didn't like.Mexicanpete said:
Proving FPTP is inequitable.Casino_Royale said:No, the most disproportionate election to date was the solid majority Tony Blair won in 2005 with only 35% of the vote.
0 -
Democratic legitimacy for a start, Morris.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Punter, what are the gains that outweigh policies you don't like?
4 -
PR in the UK will most likely enable the populist right. Would make a Faragist party truly viable and mean the Tories could not govern without it. A seriously bad idea.Barnesian said:
Reform UK are very pro PR.tlg86 said:
It probably also suggests that the Electoral Reform Society isn't entirely political neutral. I think there are arguments for and against first past the post, but it amuses me that it tends to be people on the Left of politics who are most keen on changing the system. They would be horrified if we did go to PR and it produced a result they really didn't like.Mexicanpete said:
Proving FPTP is inequitable.Casino_Royale said:No, the most disproportionate election to date was the solid majority Tony Blair won in 2005 with only 35% of the vote.
0 -
We've scraped the bottom of a new barrel, that the only reason for FPTP and the Tory party is to protect us from Farage.Burgessian said:
PR in the UK will most likely enable the populist right. Would make a Faragist party truly viable and mean the Tories could not govern without it. A seriously bad idea.Barnesian said:
Reform UK are very pro PR.tlg86 said:
It probably also suggests that the Electoral Reform Society isn't entirely political neutral. I think there are arguments for and against first past the post, but it amuses me that it tends to be people on the Left of politics who are most keen on changing the system. They would be horrified if we did go to PR and it produced a result they really didn't like.Mexicanpete said:
Proving FPTP is inequitable.Casino_Royale said:No, the most disproportionate election to date was the solid majority Tony Blair won in 2005 with only 35% of the vote.
4 -
No chance.kjh said:
If you were ruler for a day Peter would you change the voting system so you became ruler for life and became our beloved benign dictator?Peter_the_Punter said:If I were ruler for a day, the first thing I would change would be the voting system.
FPTP is responsible for many ills, but sadly I have to agree with Mike. Ain't gonna change.
Rule this lot? You gotta be kidding.1 -
2024 will certainly produce a majority seats winner if that is the case without a majority of votes. The last PM to win a majority of seats with his party also winning a majority of votes was Baldwin in 1931.
Probably the best Sunak can hope for is to do a Corbyn in 2017 or Brown in 2010 and close the gap enough with Starmer to get a hung parliament0 -
One can imagine many things. However, when countries have switched to more proportional systems, this hasn't typically happened.DecrepiterJohnL said:
One can easily imagine each of the major parties splitting into their ideological parts, even the Greens.Malmesbury said:
1997 says hello.Ghedebrav said:Lessons were well understood I’d say; why on Earth would either Cons or Labour press to change a system that is so clearly tipped in their favour?
The public are suspicious of electoral reform in any case. FPTP is the devil we know.
Both major parties would see it in terms of empowering the extremes. Reform would enter Parliament in a sizeable way, and the Greens would become Hard Left Labour and take a similar slice.0 -
a) You shouldn't throw out a system because it gives you a result you don't like. That isn't democracyBurgessian said:
PR in the UK will most likely enable the populist right. Would make a Faragist party truly viable and mean the Tories could not govern without it. A seriously bad idea.Barnesian said:
Reform UK are very pro PR.tlg86 said:
It probably also suggests that the Electoral Reform Society isn't entirely political neutral. I think there are arguments for and against first past the post, but it amuses me that it tends to be people on the Left of politics who are most keen on changing the system. They would be horrified if we did go to PR and it produced a result they really didn't like.Mexicanpete said:
Proving FPTP is inequitable.Casino_Royale said:No, the most disproportionate election to date was the solid majority Tony Blair won in 2005 with only 35% of the vote.
b) In most European countries running PR the centre right party is one of the main parties and often forms governments without coalitions with the far right and happily forms coalitions with liberals, social democrats etc.4 -
With PR the Tories almost certainly would always need Reform to form a government, or the LDs, or maybe even bothBurgessian said:
PR in the UK will most likely enable the populist right. Would make a Faragist party truly viable and mean the Tories could not govern without it. A seriously bad idea.Barnesian said:
Reform UK are very pro PR.tlg86 said:
It probably also suggests that the Electoral Reform Society isn't entirely political neutral. I think there are arguments for and against first past the post, but it amuses me that it tends to be people on the Left of politics who are most keen on changing the system. They would be horrified if we did go to PR and it produced a result they really didn't like.Mexicanpete said:
Proving FPTP is inequitable.Casino_Royale said:No, the most disproportionate election to date was the solid majority Tony Blair won in 2005 with only 35% of the vote.
0 -
And the populist right have already taken over the Conservative Party anyway.Jonathan said:
We've scraped the bottom of a new barrel, that the only reason for FPTP and the Tory party is to protect us from Farage.Burgessian said:
PR in the UK will most likely enable the populist right. Would make a Faragist party truly viable and mean the Tories could not govern without it. A seriously bad idea.Barnesian said:
Reform UK are very pro PR.tlg86 said:
It probably also suggests that the Electoral Reform Society isn't entirely political neutral. I think there are arguments for and against first past the post, but it amuses me that it tends to be people on the Left of politics who are most keen on changing the system. They would be horrified if we did go to PR and it produced a result they really didn't like.Mexicanpete said:
Proving FPTP is inequitable.Casino_Royale said:No, the most disproportionate election to date was the solid majority Tony Blair won in 2005 with only 35% of the vote.
1 -
Just in case though @Peter_the_Punter can you let us know your other policies? Just hedging my bets as to whether I should support you or not in the uprising.Peter_the_Punter said:
No chance.kjh said:
If you were ruler for a day Peter would you change the voting system so you became ruler for life and became our beloved benign dictator?Peter_the_Punter said:If I were ruler for a day, the first thing I would change would be the voting system.
FPTP is responsible for many ills, but sadly I have to agree with Mike. Ain't gonna change.
Rule this lot? You gotta be kidding.0 -
It's because their minds are so small: easy to readNigelb said:
People on the right apparently have a special ability to read the minds of people on the left.Peter_the_Punter said:
I'm on the left of politics and I don't care if it produces policies I don't like. The gains are worth it.tlg86 said:
It probably also suggests that the Electoral Reform Society isn't entirely political neutral. I think there are arguments for and against first past the post, but it amuses me that it tends to be people on the Left of politics who are most keen on changing the system. They would be horrified if we did go to PR and it produced a result they really didn't like.Mexicanpete said:
Proving FPTP is inequitable.Casino_Royale said:No, the most disproportionate election to date was the solid majority Tony Blair won in 2005 with only 35% of the vote.
0 -
Yeah, that would be terrible.Burgessian said:
PR in the UK will most likely enable the populist right. Would make a Faragist party truly viable and mean the Tories could not govern without it. A seriously bad idea.Barnesian said:
Reform UK are very pro PR.tlg86 said:
It probably also suggests that the Electoral Reform Society isn't entirely political neutral. I think there are arguments for and against first past the post, but it amuses me that it tends to be people on the Left of politics who are most keen on changing the system. They would be horrified if we did go to PR and it produced a result they really didn't like.Mexicanpete said:
Proving FPTP is inequitable.Casino_Royale said:No, the most disproportionate election to date was the solid majority Tony Blair won in 2005 with only 35% of the vote.
0 -
All power corrupts. But some must govern. So reluctantly, I'll scramble to the top of the heap....Peter_the_Punter said:
No chance.kjh said:
If you were ruler for a day Peter would you change the voting system so you became ruler for life and became our beloved benign dictator?Peter_the_Punter said:If I were ruler for a day, the first thing I would change would be the voting system.
FPTP is responsible for many ills, but sadly I have to agree with Mike. Ain't gonna change.
Rule this lot? You gotta be kidding.1 -
Most of Labour favour PR - the Unions, a majority of LLPs, Conference. It's just Starmer and his advisors who oppose it for obvious self serving reasons.Anabobazina said:All rather academic. FPP is going nowhere: both big parties oppose PR. Why would they change a system that favours them?
0 -
If people want Farage they should be able to vote for him and expect those votes to count. The near 4m votes without a seat in 2015 was the low point in our democracy - which is why ReFUK are clear that they want the FUKers to benefit from PR.Jonathan said:
We've scraped the bottom of a new barrel, that the only reason for FPTP and the Tory party is to protect us from Farage.Burgessian said:
PR in the UK will most likely enable the populist right. Would make a Faragist party truly viable and mean the Tories could not govern without it. A seriously bad idea.Barnesian said:
Reform UK are very pro PR.tlg86 said:
It probably also suggests that the Electoral Reform Society isn't entirely political neutral. I think there are arguments for and against first past the post, but it amuses me that it tends to be people on the Left of politics who are most keen on changing the system. They would be horrified if we did go to PR and it produced a result they really didn't like.Mexicanpete said:
Proving FPTP is inequitable.Casino_Royale said:No, the most disproportionate election to date was the solid majority Tony Blair won in 2005 with only 35% of the vote.
We all dislike some politicians and politics. The way to defeat them is through a fair election - we saw off the BNP didn't we? The problem we have is that the Tories not only want to stop non-Tories voting, they now want to fly in votes from Baku to save them, and Labour had a chance to reform things and instead decided that a 179 majority was better for them in the long run. How did that work out lads?
0 -
https://news.sky.com/story/kwasi-kwarteng-to-stand-down-at-next-election-13065210
Kwasi Kwarteng, a giant among Conservative Chancellors of the Exchequer, is to stand down at the next election.0 -
Probably because you have forgotten the relevant ERS report:DavidL said:
Why do i get the impression that the authors of the report were ok with that?Casino_Royale said:No, the most disproportionate election to date was the solid majority Tony Blair won in 2005 with only 35% of the vote.
The bigger problem with FPTP in recent times is that it has provided messy Parliaments instead of the democratic dictatorship that it is supposed to. 2010 and 2017 were both examples of that although the first was fixed by the Coalition. 2019 was a return to form and I think this time, particularly with the collapse of the SNP, will be likewise.
The 2005 General Election: Worst Election Ever
https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/latest-news-and-research/publications/2005-general-election/
2 -
This is one of the few areas where as I've got older I've changed my mind and become more Conservative.
I used to love PR, I'm now opposed. Too much power would go to those who make candidate lists. I don't love coalition govt either - hard for people to know what they are voting for.2 -
I hope so. Then the Lib Dems can do a C&S deal with Labour to get PR.HYUFD said:2024 will certainly produce a majority seats winner if that is the case without a majority of votes. The last PM to win a majority of seats with his party also winning a majority of votes was Baldwin in 1931.
Probably the best Sunak can hope for is to do a Corbyn in 2017 or Brown in 2010 and close the gap enough with Starmer to get a hung parliament0 -
We've had general elections in 2010, 2015, 2017 and 2019. In two of them, the Tories needed the LDs or the DUP to form a government. So PR wouldn't make that much difference!HYUFD said:
With PR the Tories almost certainly would always need Reform to form a government, or the LDs, or maybe even bothBurgessian said:
PR in the UK will most likely enable the populist right. Would make a Faragist party truly viable and mean the Tories could not govern without it. A seriously bad idea.Barnesian said:
Reform UK are very pro PR.tlg86 said:
It probably also suggests that the Electoral Reform Society isn't entirely political neutral. I think there are arguments for and against first past the post, but it amuses me that it tends to be people on the Left of politics who are most keen on changing the system. They would be horrified if we did go to PR and it produced a result they really didn't like.Mexicanpete said:
Proving FPTP is inequitable.Casino_Royale said:No, the most disproportionate election to date was the solid majority Tony Blair won in 2005 with only 35% of the vote.
0 -
Surely the smallness makes it quite hard, particularly given your typical right-winger is quite old now and likely with imperfect vision. You'd have to get pretty close (Leon said:
It's because their minds are so small: easy to readNigelb said:
People on the right apparently have a special ability to read the minds of people on the left.Peter_the_Punter said:
I'm on the left of politics and I don't care if it produces policies I don't like. The gains are worth it.tlg86 said:
It probably also suggests that the Electoral Reform Society isn't entirely political neutral. I think there are arguments for and against first past the post, but it amuses me that it tends to be people on the Left of politics who are most keen on changing the system. They would be horrified if we did go to PR and it produced a result they really didn't like.Mexicanpete said:
Proving FPTP is inequitable.Casino_Royale said:No, the most disproportionate election to date was the solid majority Tony Blair won in 2005 with only 35% of the vote.
) to lefties to read their minds. 0 -
I tell you who would win in the UK - that guy in El Salvador who just won with 85% of a democratic vote
Someone who promises to reduce crime to zero, no more graffiti, no litter, no machetes, no fly tipping, no invading boats, no football hooligans, no loudspeakers on buses, none of that shit, just a nice calm orderly society, and people having lovely picnics - and then he actually delivers that
This would win in every society, day in day out1 -
The obvious solution is to give power to the already corrupted.Malmesbury said:
All power corrupts. But some must govern. So reluctantly, I'll scramble to the top of the heap....Peter_the_Punter said:
No chance.kjh said:
If you were ruler for a day Peter would you change the voting system so you became ruler for life and became our beloved benign dictator?Peter_the_Punter said:If I were ruler for a day, the first thing I would change would be the voting system.
FPTP is responsible for many ills, but sadly I have to agree with Mike. Ain't gonna change.
Rule this lot? You gotta be kidding.2 -
Great. Then we blame the LibDems for everything. All the time. For all time.Barnesian said:
I hope so. Then the Lib Dems can do a C&S deal with Labour to get PR.HYUFD said:2024 will certainly produce a majority seats winner if that is the case without a majority of votes. The last PM to win a majority of seats with his party also winning a majority of votes was Baldwin in 1931.
Probably the best Sunak can hope for is to do a Corbyn in 2017 or Brown in 2010 and close the gap enough with Starmer to get a hung parliament1 -
Too much power goes now to those who make candidate lists. It's just that the candidate lists are only 1 person long.rkrkrk said:This is one of the few areas where as I've got older I've changed my mind and become more Conservative.
I used to love PR, I'm now opposed. Too much power would go to those who make candidate lists. I don't love coalition govt either - hard for people to know what they are voting for.
There are many proportional electoral systems that introduce choice within a party's candidates, like STV or a list system with intra-list voting.4 -
Yeah the Greens are not necessarily hard left wokists, at least outside of Scotland. TBH though Corbynist entryism is one of the reasons I recently handed in my membership (Green politics to me does not encompass What Is A Woman or Gaza).DecrepiterJohnL said:
One can easily imagine each of the major parties splitting into their ideological parts, even the Greens.Malmesbury said:
1997 says hello.Ghedebrav said:Lessons were well understood I’d say; why on Earth would either Cons or Labour press to change a system that is so clearly tipped in their favour?
The public are suspicious of electoral reform in any case. FPTP is the devil we know.
Both major parties would see it in terms of empowering the extremes. Reform would enter Parliament in a sizeable way, and the Greens would become Hard Left Labour and take a similar slice.
I guess I could get more involved and support 'my' wing of the party but honestly I simply cannot be arsed, and political activists can be horrifically tiresome.1 -
I'm against candidate lists for the reason you give.rkrkrk said:This is one of the few areas where as I've got older I've changed my mind and become more Conservative.
I used to love PR, I'm now opposed. Too much power would go to those who make candidate lists. I don't love coalition govt either - hard for people to know what they are voting for.
STV in say five seat constituencies reduce the power of parties as you can choose between candidates of the same party instead of being stuck with whoever is put up.2 -
Oi @Selebian that 1st para is my post. I post it here regularly.Selebian said:
Yes, they'd probably split, I guess (in a very amicable LD kind of way). Orange-bookers combining with some sane, liberal Tories (if there are any left) and the more social democratic faction maybe joining with some from Labour on the more liberal side. Both LD parties would find it easy enough to work together in coalition and probably, respectively, with Conservative and Labour. If it happened now, then the liberal-centre-right group could become a major party with sane Tories. Liberal centre-left probably more minor assuming Starmerist Labour stayed fairly whole except for shedding a few on the left. My natural instinct is for LD, but the breakup would be a price worth paying for voting reform.tlg86 said:
On the plus side, it would probably abolish the Lib Dems, so not all bad.Malmesbury said:
1997 says hello.Ghedebrav said:Lessons were well understood I’d say; why on Earth would either Cons or Labour press to change a system that is so clearly tipped in their favour?
The public are suspicious of electoral reform in any case. FPTP is the devil we know.
Both major parties would see it in terms of empowering the extremes. Reform would enter Parliament in a sizeable way, and the Greens would become Hard Left Labour and take a similar slice.
We have Dutch friends and it's fascinating talking to them around (Dutch) election time. Weighing up the detailed policies of two or three parties that they actually like and ultimately choosing the one that most closely aligns to their priorities, rather than just voting for B because they're really fed up with A.
ETA: Or the post PR landscape might look quite differnt to the above, who knows? And we'll probably, unfortunately, never get to find out because of the vested interest of winners under FPTF in keeping FPTP
I also think there would remain a true liberal party. I would be a member and all 6 of us could meet in my living room for our AGM.1 -
You jest, but on a metric of 'impact per day in the job' he truly was one of the greats. Not a minute was wasted.bondegezou said:https://news.sky.com/story/kwasi-kwarteng-to-stand-down-at-next-election-13065210
Kwasi Kwarteng, a giant among Conservative Chancellors of the Exchequer, is to stand down at the next election.6 -
The Tory party has been infused with Faragism for some time now anyway.Jonathan said:
We've scraped the bottom of a new barrel, that the only reason for FPTP and the Tory party is to protect us from Farage.Burgessian said:
PR in the UK will most likely enable the populist right. Would make a Faragist party truly viable and mean the Tories could not govern without it. A seriously bad idea.Barnesian said:
Reform UK are very pro PR.tlg86 said:
It probably also suggests that the Electoral Reform Society isn't entirely political neutral. I think there are arguments for and against first past the post, but it amuses me that it tends to be people on the Left of politics who are most keen on changing the system. They would be horrified if we did go to PR and it produced a result they really didn't like.Mexicanpete said:
Proving FPTP is inequitable.Casino_Royale said:No, the most disproportionate election to date was the solid majority Tony Blair won in 2005 with only 35% of the vote.
1 -
I resemble that remark.Selebian said:
The obvious solution is to give power to the already corrupted.Malmesbury said:
All power corrupts. But some must govern. So reluctantly, I'll scramble to the top of the heap....Peter_the_Punter said:
No chance.kjh said:
If you were ruler for a day Peter would you change the voting system so you became ruler for life and became our beloved benign dictator?Peter_the_Punter said:If I were ruler for a day, the first thing I would change would be the voting system.
FPTP is responsible for many ills, but sadly I have to agree with Mike. Ain't gonna change.
Rule this lot? You gotta be kidding.
I'm planning to run for President of Peru as leader of the Corrupt Gringo Party. Slogans include
- "We will steal half"
- "We will invest the money we steal in the Peruvian economy"
- "We will sell the country to foreign interests, but get a good price"2 -
While I also prefer STV, there are plenty of list systems where you introduce choice within the list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_listBarnesian said:
I'm against candidate lists for the reason you give.rkrkrk said:This is one of the few areas where as I've got older I've changed my mind and become more Conservative.
I used to love PR, I'm now opposed. Too much power would go to those who make candidate lists. I don't love coalition govt either - hard for people to know what they are voting for.
STV in say five seat constituencies reduce the power of parties as you can choose between candidates of the same party instead of being stuck with whoever is put up.3 -
Yes - that would resolve the problem. I'd support that system.Barnesian said:
I'm against candidate lists for the reason you give.rkrkrk said:This is one of the few areas where as I've got older I've changed my mind and become more Conservative.
I used to love PR, I'm now opposed. Too much power would go to those who make candidate lists. I don't love coalition govt either - hard for people to know what they are voting for.
STV in say five seat constituencies reduce the power of parties as you can choose between candidates of the same party instead of being stuck with whoever is put up.2 -
The leadership, most of the PLP, the grandees... AKA everyone with the power in the party.Barnesian said:
Most of Labour favour PR - the Unions, a majority of LLPs, Conference. It's just Starmer and his advisors who oppose it for obvious self serving reasons.Anabobazina said:All rather academic. FPP is going nowhere: both big parties oppose PR. Why would they change a system that favours them?
Not Happening Event.1
