UK, and USA, Voting FPTP Systems

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

Not arguing one way or the other but as a data point, in the 2015 election, Ukip would have been third largest party under PR

PR vs FPTP

Conservative 240 vs 331
Labour 198 vs 232
UKIP 82 vs 1
LD 51 vs 8
SNP 31 vs 56
Green 25 vs 1

As somebody mentioned upthread, at least that gets all the closet UKIPpers out of the Tory party and into the open where we can see them. And they’d be effectively neutralised by an alliance of Greens and LibDems, with or without the SNP.

 

[SteveS1]

As somebody mentioned upthread, at least that gets all the closed UKIPpers out of the Tory party and into the open where we can see them. And they’d be effectively neutralised by an alliance of Greens and LibDems, with or without the SNP.

How are they neutralised if a slim Tory popular vote can form a government dependent on a DUP/ERG/BNP/Kipper alliance? Thinking that it could go the same way with Lab/Lib/Green/SWP equiv doesn't make up for it in my view.

I would settle for a much more accurate reflection of the popular vote share, but there has to be something in there to prevent a minority controlling the agenda, or having input well beyond their mandate imo.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

You’re letting the best be the enemy of the good, though, as I said upthread.

 

[Vinny]

So what's your point? You said first that my two positions were contradictory. Now you're saying that they need doing in a particular order, which implies they're not contradictory but complimentary. I'm not sure you have a clear argument you want to express here. But if you come up with one, I'll try to engage with it.

My point is/was simply that your first proposition is never going to happen.

To (arguably) entirely different ends, but the USSR tried that for 60 years or so and continues to do so to some degree now. China is still trying. Myanmar and legions of other countries are trying "to educate" their populations in a manner as you suggest we do here.

How many people being "re-educated" have died or lived or live in misery? The whole idea is beyond preposterous.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

I can’t argue with you if you’re going to start by misrepresenting my point.

 

[SteveS1]

You’re letting the best be the enemy of the good, though, as I said upthread.

Or preventing something even worse than we have now, depending on how you look at it. It didn't ought to be beyond the wit of man to build in some threshold/minimum like protections. About the only thing the FPTP has going for it is the prevention of minority votes being over endowed with representation.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

Or preventing something even worse than we have now, depending on how you look at it. It didn't ought to be beyond the wit of man to build in some threshold/minimum like protections. About the only thing the FPTP has going for it is the prevention of minority votes being over endowed with representation.

You mean, like happened with the DUP post 2016?

 

[Vinny]

I can’t argue with you if you’re going to start by misrepresenting my point.

I am not. Your proposal - to - "improve education so that fewer people support the undesirable minority parties in the first place."

By/to whose standard(s)? You have your arbitary ones, everyone has their own arbitary ones, including Stalin, Hitler, the Burmese generals, and countlesss more, past and present. Why should, why would, anyone march to your tune in particular?

The proposition is totally nuts.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

I am not. Your proposal - to - "improve education so that fewer people support the undesirable minority parties in the first place."

By/to whose standard(s)? You have your arbitary ones, everyone has their own arbitary ones, including Stalin, Hitler, the Burmese generals, and countlesss more, past and present. Why should, why would, anyone march to your tune in particular?

The proposition is totally nuts.

The proposition is that improved education tends to give people the skills to think for themselves. Which, I'm informed by many on here such as Seanm and Droodzilla, makes them less likely to be vulnerable to demagogues, fake news and all the rest. And better-educated people get better jobs and enjoy a higher standard of living, which again, makes them less vulnerable to charlatans claiming to have their interests at heart. It's not Stalinist 're-education' and if you persist in misrepresenting my argument in those terms, then you can talk to yourself.

 

[SteveS1]

You mean, like happened with the DUP post 2016?

Hard cases make bad law, I don't have to mention how exceptional a plebiscite is in our HoC - leading as it did to the type of cross party division never seen on anything else. I'm unclear how you think that wouldn't also happen with PR elected parties similarly split.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

Hard cases make bad law, I don't have to mention how exceptional a plebiscite is in our HoC - leading as it did to the type of cross party division never seen on anything else. I'm unclear how you think that wouldn't also happen with PR elected parties similarly split.

Well, we can leave things as they are, in which case, more of what we see now is entirely likely and predictable, because it's basically rigged that way. Or we can make a change. Personally, I'd make a change, because I view more of the same as borderline intolerable, but I recognise that not everybody shares all my concerns. I guess it comes down to how you weigh the risks in the balance.

Thing is, if you don't like PR, then we need to find something without its potential downsides. Which goes back to my point about not letting the best be the enemy of the good. Unless and until you have something in mind, I'd go with some form of proper PR.

 

[DaveMc64]

My previous calculation highlighted something I hadn't really thought about previously and that is representation of the various countries within the UK and how you accomodate that within PR.
Figures below are current seats vs PR seats assuming equal proportionality by population.

England 533 vs 566
Scotland 59 vs 36
Wales 40 vs 21
NI 18 vs 12

 

[Tony L]

Not arguing one way or the other but as a data point, in the 2015 election, Ukip would have been third largest party under PR

PR vs FPTP

Conservative 240 vs 331
Labour 198 vs 232
UKIP 82 vs 1
LD 51 vs 8
SNP 31 vs 56
Green 25 vs 1

That is one very precise and atypical moment in time. The UKIP vote collapsed hugely after the referendum. I’d expect the far-right to be down at about 8% in an election now, and split between Farage, UKIP, EDL and BNP, i.e. not a solid block. Plus the Trump-clone Tories have stolen most of their alt-right xenophobic and nationalist/isolationist clothes to the extent it is hard to work out what they are for now.

It may take a couple of goes to settle down but in time I’d expect the left of centre (i.e. not Labour) to become far stronger. Given the trajectory of the climate, pollution etc I would expect the Greens to grow into a powerful force assuming they can keep voices as focused and articulate as Caroline Lucas in the spotlight.

 

[Seeker_UK]

For 2019 UKIP seats go back to Tories and / or Brexit Party

https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk...have-looked-with-proportional-representation/

 

[kabayiri]

Why is the minority focus so often on the alt-right?
The UK is more diverse than it has been in it's history, and that allows for a range of both middle and extreme opinions on several different bases.
Don't you think a Muslim focussed party would do well in a PR set up?
What about a Jewish or Christian party?
These things are just as important, if not moreso, to some than the old ideas of Left & Right.

 

[Seeker_UK]

Looking at the table I posted, that's a bit of a problem if you think a 'progressive alliance' is going to sweep away the problems of FPTP. Of course, PR would mean an opportunity for smaller parties, less marriages of convenience and as @kabayiri points out, openings for other parties to coalesce around other ideals.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

At a fundamental level, if universal suffrage means anything, it should mean that everybody’s vote has equal weight. At the moment, once one party gets above a threshold, everybody else’s vote in that constituency literally counts for nothing. If you argue not to change FPTP, be aware you argue to perpetuate this iniquity.

 

[kabayiri]

Looking at the table I posted, that's a bit of a problem if you think a 'progressive alliance' is going to sweep away the problems of FPTP. Of course, PR would mean an opportunity for smaller parties, less marriages of convenience and as @kabayiri points out, openings for other parties to coalesce around other ideals.

It's not just current ideals or current numbers.
It's about trends too.
Certain religious communities were very small a generation a go, and have been growing at a much greater pace than traditional Christian groups.
There is also the effect of disruptive events.
The opening of mass migration to Polish people 15 years ago is a good case in point, as may be the influx of large numbers from Hong Kong in the future.
Some of the Polish people I know have what I would on the face of it describe as strong right of centre views, but for various reasons they don't align with UKIP.
Maybe we just need a system to allow more variety of thought.

 

[Seeker_UK]

The counter-argument is that PR is more likely to return a hung parliament, which is more likely with PR fracturing of parties into more, smaller, units. That raises the risk of regular, lengthy periods of no Government as parties horse-trade (hopefully in the open) and that can take weeks (Germany, every election) up to (albeit the exception) of 18 months after the Belgian GE in 2010. The other risk is to stability as alliances break up over the course of a parliament, with the consequence of minority governments, and we know how well that went last time.

Everyone's vote must count but what if it leads to a more ineffective national Government of any flavour?

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

Frankly, it doesn't seem to have hurt Germany.