How would the UK House of Commons look under MMP?
Vložit
- čas přidán 19. 05. 2015
- The UK House of Commons uses the first past the post voting system. This system doesn’t proportionally represent the votes cast by the population as there is only one winner in each seat. Hypothetically if one party gained 51% of the votes in every electorate, they would hold 100% of the seats in the house.
New Zealand’s Parliament is modelled after Westminster, but in 1996 New Zealand changed from the first past the post voting system to a proportional system of representation. So how would the house look if the Kiwi’s system was used in the UK?
Follow me on twitter: soliloquy084
Like the FaceBook page: soliloquy084
Further Reading : www.elections.org.nz/voting-sy...
CGP Grey’s Politics in the animal Kingdom: • Playlist
Music:
Americana by Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 creativecommons.org/licenses/b...
I despise UKIP with a flaming passion, but if they won 12 percent of the vote, they deserve 12 percent of the seats in parliament, period.
Also importantly, they don't poison any other party by being members or key voters of them. Other parties, even if they had a coalition or confidence deal with UKIP, would be able to keep their own leaders apart and would not sacrifice their own tenure for UKIP's benefit.
In German and NZ MMP, if a party gets less than 5% they don’t get party list MPs. To stop lots of tiny splinter parties potentially controlling the balance of power. It was a postwar German rule after what happened in the Weimar Reichstag. Small parties get an MP if they can win a local seat however.
Exactly the same here, mate. Agree 100%
I’d have to agree, it’s not rigged if the party I don’t like wins it’s just democracy. For example I voted Labour but SNP won my area, my MP used to be the local barber who I went to a couple times, nice guy who earned his win even if I don’t like his want for independence.
The bit I disagree with is that England doesn’t have its own parliament like the other nations do, so when they vote Tory we get saddled with Boris or when they vote incorrectly in a referendum we all suffer the long bumbling mess that follows. But that’s democracy. It’s not fun, it’s not always fair but it’s so heavily monitored that fraud is exceptionally difficult to pull off because none of the parties want the others to cheat.
I agree, and I also despise UKIP with a flaming passion. The Netherlands uses Proportional Representation, and their far-right (Geert Wilders' party) has 20 of the 150 seats. They have not been able to inflict anywhere near as much harm on the country as Farage has on the UK without winning any seats. Besides, I believe many UKIP votes are really just protest votes, and with a fair system, there would probably be far fewer of those.
0:02
YOU: "...New Zealand abandoned the first-past-the-post voting system..."
CGP Grey: "Oh thank God."
I mean... FPTP is used for the local seats.
On the other hand - the party vote should compensate for that, and I haven’t heard of an MMP system that doesn’t used FPTP for the local seats (although that’s not to say it should)
@@iamthinking2252_ There was a proposal in the UK for AV+ Which was Instant Runoff Voting with MMP
The trouble is that while we've abandoned FPTP for national elections, people still act and vote as if we're still voting in an FPTP system. The previous election was a prime example of this, when everyone just assumed National would remain in power simply because they had more seats, completely disregarding the fact that Labour had an equally viable chance to form a government through coalitions.
frostyguy1989 yea, I’ve seen that too
Who?
How did UKIP get 12.6% of the votes for the country and only 1/650 seats in parliament lmao
Welcome to first past the post
They only got majority in one constituency.
They may have even been elected in a minority if there were enough parties in that constituency. It is possible to get more votes than anyone else whilst still having less than 50% of the vote. Such is FPTP.
AwesomeGuy622
still majority.
plurality, not majority
This is why the US needs to get rid of FPTP. No more of it! Any sensible country needs to get rid of it in general.
I don't think we should use MMP though. I would prefer another voting system other than FPTP or MMP. MMP seems like it works best for countries that have more than two major parties, and while the US has more than two parties, most of the citizens fall into the two default ones anyway politically. There's tons of different voting systems
The reason the US (like the UK) only really has 2 major political parties is because over time FPTP always trends to two main parties. This is because whilst people may wish to vote for another party, they know that party is small and has no chance of winning so they have to vote strategically for the party they hate least rather than picking one they actually like. If you try to say hell to the system and vote for a smaller party this is where the spoiler effect happens. You and numerous other people try to vote for another party but in doing so you split the vote between your previous party and the new one, ensuring a victory for the party you definitely did not want to win...
But if it were changed to MMP, you'd see a change in voter behaviour - you'd see more members from smaller parties taking seats
In practice, however, it doesn't quite work like this. There are still more than two parties, they're just called "wings" of the two on the ballot - at the moment this is very visible in the struggle within Labour, or in the USA within the GOP. Therefore, FPTP is undemocratic in two ways: it doesn't represent the political layout of the country, and it divides up the vote in two political parties that, internally, have no democratic control.
***** The two party idealogy is so engrained into our politics BECAUSE we've had the system so long. I honestly feel like people wouldn't even pay attention to the other parties even if we had a system that favored them, because theres already been this idea that the other parties don't matter ironed into people's heads. People think "Oh, he's not a Dem or Rep, so i would be throwing my vote away", because the average person barely knows how voting systems work. And that thought would stick. They would have to REALLY push the fact that other parties have more power with the new voting system if they would want people to cooperate. You overestimate how much people actually understand voting.
I know that a lot of people wouldn't want a large UKIP presence due to this system, but that's democracy, everyone, just because it's not your opinion, deserves their say.I personally despise UKIP but if they actually had a serious chance of getting anywhere, then they'd definitely calm down on their large racist tendencies if they ever had a hope of running the country.
Totally agree with this comment. Thanks
+Harry Heath I don't think UKIP are racist but they have a slant and it's doesn't smell good once you get past the Euro-skepticism. But other than that, I totally agree with both your statement and the video if only because SOMETHING's got to change in terms of how parliaments around the world do things. Something has to give. I'd prefer RCV systems with a system similar to the one that Greece has, making sure that EVERY party always has SOME skin in the game, but again, ANY system for wider democracy at this point can't be any worse that THIS.
***** Plenty of their donors have been known to be homophobic and racist
That doesn't make the party of its ideaology racist.
VintageLJ It definitely doesnt help their cause if their financial supporters are pretty terrible people. Any old party doesnt just attract that kind of attention. Obviously its not all, but youve got to admit that a lot of euro-skepticism is based on some underlying racist tendencies, hence the the numbers over 50 supporting leaving europe.
Normally your accent doesn't confuse me, but it just took me until the end of the video to notice you were saying Electorates, and not Illiterates. Time to watch this over again now that I know what you said so the information will stick :P
Now I can't unhear it
This sounds almost like democracy. Go away with such wicked ideas
I think our system works ok, the only change I'd make is allowing second-choice parties
Your primary choice gets 2 votes, and your second gets 1. Or, you can dedicate all 3 votes to 1 party if you support them enough. Or spread all 3 between 3 parties fsr
@@jamescrozier6424they had a higher vote share and also how doesn’t that work when they formed a government.
So, tell me, do you think MMP is a good system? And what electoral system do you think is the best to use?
Soliloquy It would be interesting to know how the votes might change under a different voting system. I've heard suggestions that some votes are cast as more of a protest vote, but might not all be cast if they knew that party members would actually be getting elected. Though for myself, I'd actually go the opposite. I live in Canada, which sadly has a similar situation happening, but if I knew that a vote for a smaller party would actually help representatives get elected, I would actually go for that, at least some of the time, as opposed to my current Strategic Voting plan, where I'm still not necessarily voting for what I want, just voting Against what I Don't want. :(
As for which I would choose, tough to say. But anything is potentially better than FPTP. Have you had a chance to listen to the most recent HelloInternet yet? CGP Grey talks about this with Brady Haran , though I don't think he was able to convince Brady out of his desires for an Authoritarian Regime. :P
David Learmonth I'm a New Zealand citizen, hence why I used the NZ rules (as I know them). Personally I'm a bit of a swing voter, I've voted for both of the major parties in the past as well as minor ones. I don't think I would have voted for a minor party under FPTP. So I'd be just like you with that voting strategy!
I have had a listen to the latest Hello Internet (I did wait until I had my script sorted before I did, to avoid being influenced). I think Brady might have been paying devils advocate a little, but there is a bit of fear that minor parties will be in the position of kingmaker and be able to demand whatever they like. This actually hasn't been the experience we've had in New Zealand, no minor party wants to force the nation back to the polls because the public will punish, severely, the minor party if it was to do that.
Soliloquy Interesting. Thank you for the insight!
We've had the "kingmaker" scenario somewhat with one of our Major parties that just hasn't been in power itself, the NDP (New Democratic Party), where they were supporting the Liberals typically. (Left, and Centre-Left, respectively). That is an interesting point of concern. I'd be curious to know how much it affects policy in other countries with MMP or other systems.
And of course due to concentration of voters, we usually (but not currently) have a disproportionate representation of the Parti Quebecois, who tend to favour separation from Canada.
What bugs me about our system, besides FPTP, is that although it is quite like the British system, it seems that when a Minority situation arises, we don't seem to actually need agreement on who our Prime Minister would be. At least in Britain, you still needed a majority of parliament to agree. Whereas, harper just was PM by default in those early years, which gave him way too much power to manipulate the system, and make it look like he "needed" a majority to be able to get anything done, because the other parties wouldn't "work with him". (when really he was just being an uncompromising jerk). But the game worked, and in the end, we got a very weak (but very powerful) majority, will all the power centralized in 1 person. Terrible system, IMHO.
I'm sad to see an even smaller "majority" winning in Britain, at least for the reasons of Representation.
Now, as for what systems of government are best, that can be a whole other debate. Sometimes authoritarian regimes actually work reasonably well. Though I don't think I'd push for those. I'd rather have something more Proportional. :)
With MMP UKIP would be in a better position with more seats? Not sure that's a good thing. Do you know anything about the alternative vote system what are the differences with that?
killerklipz Alternative vote has a lot of the disadvantages of first past the post. But it dose remove the spoiler effect, so under AV, voting for a minor party isn't equivalent to voting against the closest major party, as it is in FPTP. If you're electing a single person to a position (e.g. mayor) then AV is a better choice; but if you're electing an entire body with more than 100 people you can get much better representation with a proportional system in my opinion.
Please do a US House of Representatives under MMP video.
To me it seems like that'd be impossible to tell because the US doesn't really have more than 2 parties anywhere, you'd need to have a non-FTPT system for years to open up politics nearly enough to figure out where people's real allegiances are
@Marka Ragnos I've actually thought about doing that before, but it's tough to parse what numbers mean what, how much of the non-voters would vote with better representation, etc
It probably can be done but I have no clue what methods would be used and i can't imagine having a tight margin of error
@@razernaga14 Of course you are right that it would be impossible to tell in the US for the reason you give, but for the very same reason, this video doesn't come close to accurately depicting how the UK's HoC would look under this system either. In the US it's even worse, but not by all that much.
I've gotta hand it to this guy, pronouncing Sinn Fein the correct way, not the way it's spelt
Shin fain?
@@fds7476 ye
It *is* pronounced the way its spelt 😂 it’s just it’s Irish, so follows Irish rules of spelling and pronunciation 😂
@@evantighe696 for english obviously
@@dl4350 I know aha I was just raising a point, that Sinn Fein is technically pronounced the way it’s spelt 😂
For the UK, I prefer a "regional PR" where you take a set number of existing seats that are geographically close together and combine the electorate into a PR vote. For example, starting in the far south west of England (as this is the simplest example!), taking the first 6 seats (which makes geographical sense; 4,5 or 6 seats would work), which in 2015 were:
St Ives (Conservative)
Cambourne (Conservative)
Truro (Conservative)
St Austell (Conservative)
Cornwall North (Conservative)
Cornwall SE (Conservative)
So Conservatives won all 6 seats. However, they actually got less than 50% of the overall votes cast, meaning that well over 50% of the votes were basically ignored.
If you add all these together into a PR vote, where one party or candidate would need 16.7% of the overall vote to win a seat, you would get (Numbers in brackets are the % change from seats won to votes cast):
Conservatives 3 seats (+6%)
Lib Dems 1 Seat (-6%)
Labour 1 Seat (+4%)
UKIP 1 seat (+2%)
Green 0 Seats (-6%)
Which matches the actual voting much closer, while still giving voters a "local" representative MP.
Far superior to the existing FPTP system. You still only cast one vote, you still get a local representative and you keep the exact same number of MP's, while at the same time creating a much, much fairer voting system that still allows local independents to stand and win.
Most of the Nordic countries use a system of regional PR as you described. They all rank on the top of the democracy index so It"s probably working pretty well.
That's what the UK used for the former EU Parliamentary elections.
Please do one of these for the 2017 UK election!!
2019*
@@bojomay2952 There was an election in 2017 you muppet. That would've been the most recent at the time of posting.
@@Pine_of_EnglandHe doesn’t want you to remember the 2017 election because, judging by his Boris pfp, that was the election at which Corbyn ended up at only 2.1% behind the Conservatives. Or he is a numpty and just forgot about it.
This seems like a slightly better version of the Scottish and Welsh Systems (Additional Member I believe?)
Its also quite similar to the London Assembly, which they use Top-Up votes to make the citys assembly more proportional.
However I am a STV man at heart, and while anything would be better than FPP, i think the Kiwis and the Aussies have it right, although Kudos to the Welsh and Scots who seem to do well too.
STV is also a good system. But larger parties are favoured if the electorates elect too few representatives. It's not quite proportional but most of the time it results in something about as proportional as MMP using the 5% threshold that NZ and Germany use.
it would be interesting to go into detail with more types of voting like ranked-choice but would be a lot harder to simulate.
Sup 781! I expect you to grow fast your content is awesome!
Thanks for your kind comment, it is already amazing to think that many people are interested in my videos.
A major issue found in the UK is there is a major a media and political focus on southern (primarily london) areas and so there is a risk that the poorer areas such as the Northeast wouldn't have people from a political party representing their interests. It would require a an adoption of a regionalised version to fill up seats to ensure local interests are considered. First past the post obviously needs to go because of a lack of proportionality, spoiler effects and strategic voting. Probably some form of proportional representation of bigger areas such as councels with a ranking system that designates point for each position of ranking i.e 1st gets 10, 2nd gets 5, 3rd gets 3, 4 gets 2 and 5th gets 1.
It's such an informative video. You deserve more views!
The00ching00 Thanks, maybe if I'm lucky one day those views will come. Did you check out my other videos?
Soliloquy Yep.
Great video, have you done any more since. I was a bit confused as sometimes you pronounce Party as Paddy and I thought you w
ere talking about the Irish
I feel as though we should use the D'hondt system like we use for electing MEP's.. it would allow each region to have a more representative electoral result.. for example in Northern Ireland, the DUP and sinn fein received around the same amount of votes (8000 votes apart) , yet the DUP has twice the seats..
I'd like to see an amalgamation of the alternative vote and MMP voting systems. That way the largest party would go to the more generally accepted party and the rest of the seats would be filled more equally with their favourite parties(Assuming their favourity parties didn't make the largest party).
An commission in the UK suggested that. Govt said meh and reneged on the referendum for it. I suspect it would not have passed tho.
@theuglykwan Idk. There were people voting for Brexit just to say "screw you" to the Conservatives. I knew a few people who were doing that. And if they were told that it would screw over the major parties, those people would definitely vote for it.
Hi can you do an up to date version of this?
imgur.com/a/HhT0B60
I made a few assumptions, like a list threshold, but had I done that the normal way and excluded parties which got less than say 5% in the whole of the UK, I would have gotten rid of basically all the regional parties, even though a true MMP system for a country the size of the UK would have had regional lists like Scotland and Wales do to prevent that from being an issue.
So if an independent candidate wins a general electorate in a 100 member legislative assembly, do you just allocate the other 99 seats based on the party vote or does the independent seat become an overhang seat?
Would be interesting to see this under the 2017 vote.
if youre still interested 4 years later, i recently wrote up some code to do the same thing, except i kept the number of constituencies the same at 650 and made the total number of seats 800:
2015-
Conservatives: 330
Labour: 245
UKIP: 102
LibDem: 64
SNP: 56
Greens: 30
DUP: 8
Plaid Cymru: 5
Sinn Féin: 5
UUP: 4
SDLP: 3
Independent: 1
Speaker: 1
854 total seats in parliament with overhangs (425 needed for a majority)
2017-
Conservatives: 349
Labour: 329
LibDem: 61
SNP: 35
Greens: 14
DUP: 10
Sinn Féin: 7
Plaid Cymru: 5
Independent: 1
Speaker: 1
812 total seats (403 needed for a majority)
2019-
Conservatives: 365
Labour: 266
LibDem: 96
SNP: 48
Greens: 22
DUP: 8
Sinn Féin: 7
SDLP: 4
Plaid Cymru: 4
Alliance: 4
Speaker: 1
825 total seats (409 for a majority)
these numbers can also change depending on what method of apportionment you use and whether or not you add “balancing seats” (even more extra seats to prevent overhangs from skewing the proportionality)
in summary, labour still can’t win an election to save its life but there are clearly large numbers of voters who are being completely ignored by the current FPTP system
We definitely need to get rid of First Past the Post in this country; in the voting referendum, I voted for P.V., as a M.P. should have half or over half the votes, and think, this should be the same with the party that is in, however, my cousin, who did politics at Manchester University voted to keep the current system, but admitted, the current system has problems, but P.V. is too smiliar in a sense to F.P.T.P system. The system, we use for Welsh elections, also the Scottish elections and E.U. isn't bad, but in Wales, Labour always wins it, and only form two coalition governments since 1999.
If a party needs 1/2 + 1 seats to get into power in any country, why isn't, the same rules on applied in an elections, the government is meant to be representative by people not seats, Conservatives had 37% of the UK population, that is 63% of the population being ignored; in 2010, Conservative and Liberal Democrats formed a coalition, I voted Liberal Democrats, I didn't remember having a say, if we want to go in coalition with them.
To me, the best voting system would be
preference voting with both accept or reject, a candidate or party
A party or Candidate that must have 50% + 1 person vote or a coalition, also with a 50% + 1 person rule
4/5 individual ballot papers:
constituencies:
regional,
nationwide,
cabinet
head of state or a Swiss styled federal council
In NZ all constituency MPs take their seat first. Parties are then allocated seats based on their proportion of the vote.
You are not awarded a new seat until you have more entitlement to MPs than the number of constituencies you won. You then are allocated List MPs.
If you do not get enough allocated seats from the party vote to cover your constituency MPs you get an "overhang" where the parliament is one seat bigger, with an overhang limit of ten.
Impossible to watch this video because I am thrown into rage-mode, everytime I have to figure out that patties is somehow meant to mean parties. Hahaha
I'm a bit confused. Who do the "extra" MPs, the ones allocated by the party, represent? What electorate are they assigned to? Is it somehow associated with what the people of that electorate voted for?
ninjafruitchilled In New Zealand, the proportionality is calculated nationally. In other places like Scotland, the place is divided into regions, with typically 8 or 9 local FPTP seats and 7 list seats. Say in a region with 16 seats, 9 local and 7 list, if you win 25% of the vote in that region specifically, even if you didn't get any bites in any other region, you get 25%, or 4 in this case, seats, first filled by any you got via FPTP.
New Zealand, Germany, and the parts of the UK with MMP used closer lists, but it is so possible to use open lists to allow voters to pick which member of the party they want to be in what order on the list.
I'm not sure I understand. There's a little over 650 seats and half of them are parceled out to party members based on votes for the party, not the local candidate. But there are 650 constituencies in the UK, and the voting in local elections is still first past the post (as is the case in NZ). So to make this work, surely the amount of seats would need to double? Otherwise a half of those constituencies would not get any candidate that they voted for at all. Is that correct?
EDIT: I think I understand! When you say the number "isn't changed by a transition to a new electorial system" you're assuming there's a new system with the same amount of seats, and the consistencies have changed to accommodate MMP.
Yes, I kept the total number of seats the same, not including overhang seats, so there would be fewer seats available through local elections. Quite frankly 650 seats is already nuts so it would be better to reduce the numbers, maybe even so they can all actually fit in the house.
Can you do the more recent election
So, what rounding rules did you use to create the larger Constituencies?
Wow. I never thought there would be a video on this. I literally was wondering about this, and made a graph about recent elections if the UK used the German MMP system. For 2015, assuming the number of MPs stays the same, the Cons would win 253 seats, Labour would win 209 seats, UKIP would win 87 seats, the Liberal Democrats would win 55 seats, the SNP would win 32 seats, the DUP would win 4 seats, Plaid Cymru would win 4 seats, Sinn Féin would win 4 seats, and the SDLP would win 2 seats. In the German system, if a party doesn't win in at least 3 constituencies, and doesn't have the number of votes needed to pass the 5% the threshold, they are not represented. Because of this, this is the only time in British history so far that UKIP would win any seats whatsoever.
I'm confused. How do you get a seat in parliament as an independent with mmp
+Tekkogs Steve An independent can still stand in an electorate and win that seat. If an independent does win a seat then that is not an overhang seat unlike if a party wins more seats than it is allocated through the party vote.
Qs:
Who decides which constituencies get the local MP of their preference and which don't? The "party list" seats seems to give a lot more power to the party leadership than it does to voters and MPs, as the party gets to pick who fills the party list seats
And then ego decided the constituency they get allocated to?
new zealand has 72 electorates, but 120 seats. list MPs just dont have an electorate
how did you make the visuals in your video?
I actually make most of them in powerpoint. When I have time I'm trying to shift to flash, so hopefully one day I'll be able to make better animations, but I have a bit to learn there first.
Would love to see a remake of this with the 2024 election results
Where are you from?
I'm from New Zealand, where we actually use the MMP system since we got rid of FPTP.
Soliloquy Oh right. I was just asking because I looked on Socialblade and it says you're from the Netherlands.
I now live in the Netherlands so that is where the channel is based.
Fantastic vid
What about STV?
It also works.
Wait, so what constituencies would the list MPs represent, and would some regions not have MPs?
The list MPs don't have a specific constituency (or alternatively, you could say their constituency is the whole country). However, in New Zealand list MPs will often concentrate on a particular area (e.g. have their offices in a city outside of the capital) or concentrate on a particular group (e.g. farmers), and those could be considered unofficial constituencies.
All regions would have MPs, but some could (unofficially) have more than others, depending on who the party puts on its list.
But out of the 653 seats in this video, more than three were list MPs. That means there must be at least someone not getting an MP.
CharlieDodgeball That's a good point. I guess the constituencies would have to become bigger.
Could you do this for the recent election
Very good video but there is a lot of evidence that people would vote differently under AMS (MMP), a good example of this would elections in Scotland where "split voting" becomes common. in this voters will vote for two different parties on each ballot paper. either way it still remains a far more effective system than fptp.
Of cause people will change their voting behaviour, I split my vote in NZs last election. It's imposable to predict exactly what would happen so I applied the KISS principle and kept it simple; the take home message is more about how different it would be.
ahh ok, still loving your work!
I don't understand 1:38
In the 2015 general election, LD's won 8 seats, why's he saying 55 up from 44?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_2015#Results
I would like a system of MMP where instead of there being FPTP and party list, there could maybe be alternative vote and party list.
My thoughts exactly, no point keeping FPTP when AV would result in a more fair outcome in the local elections
@@partlyawesome AV is not a proportional system.
@@iikittyplayz841 Well yeah, but MMP with AV instead of FPTP is what i was saying.
If there are a lot of overhang seats, do the other amounts of seats change? The percents would be different.
Depends on the system. EG in Germany if you manage to win say 80% of say 100 single member constituencies, and 35% of the list vote for 100 list seats, they would add another 29 list seats so as to make it so that those 80 seats they won by constituency be actually 35% of the total number of seats and no more. New Zealand doesn't do that though.
i do like MMP that would be intresting, others would argue, it could lead too "hung parliments or coalitions", maybe, but that i s democracy...
FPTP is undemocratic as there is more than just 2 parties in the UK...
we live in a "Multiparty democracy", AV and other methods of electoral voting are considered better, the new zealand one is intresting, but do not stop there,
maybe the "House of lords too should be elected and have name change" maybe through PR...much more representative of the electorate...
the voting age too is a scandal in UK elections, despite scotland being 16 it is not everywhere at 16.. democracy needs to wake up, be more transparent too..
AV is not really democratic either
It's the same as FPTP, but it just uses a ranked ballot, and the proportionality is a lot more disorted under it (as it usually gives centrist parties false supermajorities from 2nd choice votes).
AV & FPTP fall under one category: Winner-Take-All (Majoritarian/Oppositional) Systems.
If we want true, participatory & strong democracy, PR voting systems (MMP, STV, Party-List) would be best to consider looking at & supporting.
AV may eliminate "strategic voting", but it is not fair not proportional at all.
I'm a PR supporter from Canada, which believes that Canada, UK, US, France & Australia are LONG OVERDUE for an electoral reform to a PR system.
northern ireland,scotland & wales use PR in regional elections only, not for UK elections..
I'm aware that for UK elections, FPTP is used. But you're not getting my point. PR systems are superior & far more democratic than single-member winner-take-all systems, such as AV & FPTP.
as i stated. yes UK elections use FPTP, its very undemocratic, but MMpr is used in the "Regional or national elections in scotland,wales,london assembly & Northern ireland" something like "mixed member PR " personally its a compromise between** AV & STV..
if this was used in UK elections, it would not be perfect, but at least proportionally** would favor "minority parties & coalitions", so most if not all UK parties would have too be less complacent and get out and engage with the electorate !!
on a recent analysis, by university of essex, the youtube video is somewhere here, nearly all UK elections since 1979, would have quite different outcomes, no landslide victories...using this system...
In New Zealand the Speaker does have a vote
You're right, I learnt something.
i believe thats the system we hav in aus and can u explain why Australia doesn't get a seat please
What I don't understand is how some of the parties won less REGIONAL seats that in 2015. Where did those figures come from?
The issue here is that this is taking the popular vote into account for people who voted under FPTP rules. People vote differently from what they want under FPTP due to strategical voting.
True, but this is probably one of the better estimates we'll have unless you really have a good university research team behind you.
Please do: what the US government would look like under STV/MMP.
I'm curious as to how this would play out in the Australian parliament.
i have done some of the math, i dont know if its all correct but i believe the liberal coalition would have about 60-70 seats, labor would have about 50-60 seats, greens would have about 15-20 seats so it would be a labor/green coalition most likely, maybe throwing in a couple independents
So wouldnt constituencies have to be merged, ot double the number of MPs for this system.
Please upload more videos.
This is the system used in Germany and it brings the problem that you get was to many overhang seats and the parlament grows and grows without stopping creating different problems.
@Soliloquy I found you through scishow.
Shz Won Thanks for checking out the channel.
The scenario posed shows the immediate problem with MMP (or any other PR system). Instead of a coherent one-party government with policies based on its previously-published manifesto, the government has to be a Con/UKIP/Ulster Unionist coalition (that no-one voted for, and which is only lashed together after the election, with no reference to the people) and even that only has a majority of 4.
All it takes for the government to fall apart is for the two Unionists to walk out, or for two cranky maverick UKIP MPs to vote against it. In practice it means the tail wags the dog: UKIP say "We want this" and the (much larger) Conservatives have to say yes or the government falls apart.
Doing so, IE walking out, doesn't necessarily bring down the government. The other parties have to want them to do be brought down, outnumbering the government in the vote of no confidence. And that would basically have to be the other parties willing to accept a Labour government or a new election. UKIP probably doesn't benefit from either, and so they have a need of being willing to accept the Tories to a significant degree.
They get even less influence if the two big parties go into a grand coalition, or if something happens like the Tories and the Lib Dems go into coalition and dares anyone to vote against them or trigger a new election.
In addition, the smallest parties like the UUP are likely to only sign confidence and supply agreements with the biggest parties, leaving the cabinet minimally affected.
This system is even more secure if you have a runoff system for naming the prime minister at the start of the parliament, perhaps needing a minimum number of seats such as 15% or 20% or 25% to nominate a candidate, and they get voted on in descending order of how many MPs sign onto the nomination, and the vote is yes or no for a candidate and each vote needs an absolute majority against the candidate to be defeated. If that doesn't work, then have each MP have a ballot and vote for one of the candidates, and if one has a majority, they are the PM, and if not, remove the lowest candidate and vote again just like they do for the speakership.
This gets further secured if you adopt rules related to votes of no confidence. Make it so that to launch one, you need a minimum number of MPs to sign onto it, and if it fails, they don't have the power to sign another one for say six months unless a majority of the MPs sign onto a petition. This could be something like 10% as in France or as high as 25% as in Germany. Combine this with a constructive vote of no confidence, where if the motion is passed, then the person whose name is on the petition is automatically chosen to the PM. How likely is UKIP to vote for such a motion if it means Labour or the SNP or a Liberal Democrat is installed? And you can make it need to pass by an absolute majority, so if there are 650 MPs, it needs 326 to pass, no less, and it can only be voted on say a week after the petition is raised, giving time to do last minute negotiations.
The PM can also have some motions to challenge the parliament into supporting them if they want to test their confidence. The cabinet collectively force in a motion of confidence, which can be attached to no motion except the general budget, but can be attached to a general policy statement like pro climate action or immigration policy or something, and if the prime minister fails to get a vote of confidence passed by a majority vote, they could call a new election if a motion of no confidence is not passed within say fourteen days, although rules like no more than one election in any twelve month period, no election in the year after the first one was elected, and no election in the last six months of the term, and that the term of the newly elected parliament only served out the remaining time in the old one would be wise.
All this gives some fair distribution of power to allow for a competent but controlled executive.
great video
This sounds good but very complicated. In Sweden we have regional representatives, usually 10-20 of them, depending on the population in each region. In a way we have local representation but it does not feel like it and the politicians are often not known by the people that they represent. I have always thought that real local representation (one MP per municipality) would be great, however that poses new problems, some municipalities are small, even below 5000 citizens while others are huge with hundreds of thousands of citizens. This system would also push out all parties but the two largest and the no1 party in Sweden, the Social Democrats would win 90% of seats even tho they only have around 35% support.
I thought that a combination of two entirely different systems would be the best, all in one chamber. (Two chambers would not work, one party, the social democrats, would complete control that chamber). So this is how I would want it to bee: A large parlament with one chamber, half the MPs are elected individually in local first past the post elections and the other half would be elected in a national election where one votes for parties, not individuals, and where the seats are distributed according to popular support. With this system we would have the benefit of local representation but also give small parties a chance.
Please comment if you think this sounds good or stupid and help me develop my thoughts.
Sorry for my English, my native language is Swedish.
Greetings from the Kingdom of Sweden!
That's a parallel system. Japan & Taiwan uses it. It's similar to AMS / MMP, it just doesn't consider the first vote when distributing the party vote. So it won't be overall proportional.
The speaker can actually vote but it is customary that he/she only votes when there is a tie and that they vote along the government line because they recognise the government's mandate to govern despite their part allegiance (speakers are elected independently within the house and can be from any party, not just the biggest one.)
Yea I was a bit wrong with how I explained the position of the speaker. You're not the first to comment on it.
+Conrad Whitcroft this is not actually true.
The speaker _cannot_ vote under normal situations, that part is not just convention. They _do_ vote to break ties. When this happens, they _by convention_ vote according to Denison's rule, which is not _exactly_ the same as voting to support the government, though in practice it's quite close to that much of the time. What they actually vote for is "in favour of further debate, or, where no further debate is possible, to vote in favour of the status quo". For example:
* In favour of early readings of bills
* Against amendments to bills
* Against the final enactment of a bill
* Against motions of no confidence
+Jim Cullen (Zagorath) I know that they have to vote according to this rule. If there had been one less vote of no confidence against the Callaghan government in 1979 the speaker would have had to keep the government in power. However, I think that is inherently democratic.
Firstly, it is the government's job to provide effective change and the speaker should take into account how much impact a bill would have, rather than having to stick to this outdated rule.
Secondly, the constituents of John Bercow (the current speaker) have no representation in the commons which isn't at all fair on them.
PLEASE DO THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
What would the Houses of Parliament look like if all the votes fell in a big well? And could not be retrieved ?
I think MMP is indeed a good system but it's not perfect, obviously. And if the UK transferred to MMP and used the NZ rules, some parties might be put to disadvantage because of the threshold of 5%, like the regional ones, Plaid Cymru, SNP and the NI parties. So I found a slight variation of the MMP which uses a regional approach, while having the number of seats matching the national results. And you avoid using overhang seats altogether.
The regional approach is to divide the territory into subdivisions, and you give a number of the proportional seats according to the population. But just using that will create distorsions between the % of votes and the % of seats. And using the full territory as one giant district put smaller parties, again, at a disadvantage. So here's how this MMP "hybrid" variation works with the 2015 UK election:
-The first thing is to use 651 seats, so we avoid perfect ties in votes.
-Then, we set aside 12% of the total, so we put 78 seats away and get back to them later, leaving 573 seats.
-After that, we split these seats between the constituant countries (the "regions") according to their population, which gives: England: 483 seats; Scotland: 47; Wales: 27; NI: 16.
-Then we split these between constituencies (C) and proportional seats (P), with 60% of the total being constituencies and 40% list seats. So we now have this:
England: 290 C + 193 P; Scotland: 28 C + 19 P; Wales: 16 C + 11 P; NI: 10 C + 6 P; Total: 344 C + 229 P
-Then, with this simulation, I will use the % of votes for the parties per constituent countries to distribute the seats between the parties. For eg.: Labour got 32% of the votes in England alone in the UK election, so it will obtain (close to) 32% of the total seats in England. I will also use the percentage of seats they got in the election to distribute the constituencies. For eg.: Labour won 39% of the seats in England, so I will give 39% of the constituencies to Labour.
So for England, I got these results:
Conservatives: 173 C + 27 P; Labour: 112 C + 42 P; UKIP: 1 C + 68 P; LibDems: 3 C + 37 P;
Greens: 1 C + 19 P.
Scotland:
SNP: 24 C+ 0 P; Labour: 2 C + 10 P; LibDems: 1 C + 6 P; Conservatives: 1 C + 3 P
Wales:
Labour: 10 C + 0 P; Conservatives: 4 C + 4 P; UKIP: 0 C + 4 P; Plaid Cymru: 1 C + 2 P; LibDems 1 C + 1 P
NI:
DUP: 4 C + 1 P; Sinn Fein: 2 C + 2 P; UUP: 1 C + 2 P; SDLP: 2 C + 0 P; Alliance: 0 C + 1 P, plus 1 independent.
So now we have a total of: 215 conservatives, 176 Labour, 73 UKIP, 46 LibDems, 24 SNP, 20 Greens, 5 DUP, 3 Plaid Cymru, 4 Sinn Fein, 3 UUP, 2 SDLP, 1 Alliance, 1 Ind.
-Now let's bring back the 78 seats, which will be used to match as close as possible the national results. I picked this from the Norwegian electoral system. To be qualified to get these "national" seats, I will use a threshold of 3,5% (which I also used for the regions, although I would recommend to use 5%). With this method, the small parties that did not get 3,5% at the national level, keep the seats they won, rather than having nothing, like in Germany. So the parties that receive seats are:
Conservatives: 26; Labour: 24; UKIP: 10; LibDems: 6, SNP: 7, Greens: 5. Total: 78 seats.
As final results: 241 conservatives, 200 Labour, 83 UKIP, 52 LibDems, 31 SNP, 25 Greens, 5 DUP, 3 Plaid Cymru, 4 Sinn Fein, 3 UUP, 2 SDLP, 1 Alliance, 1 Ind.
These results are very close to Soliloquy's, but no overhang seats are added and we include regions in the calculus, so fewer votes are wasted.
I know this is a long explanation, but I hope you found it interesting. Thanks for reading!
Are ther any more countries than germany and nz doing this
Bolivia, Scotland, Wales, London, Romania used to use it, Lesotho, Thailand kinda, South African local areas like Johannesburg uses it, Ethiopia is going to use it in their next election.
I honestly have a very strong dislike of list systems of any kind. They make MPs not responsible to anyone except the party, as they decide how high they are on the list. This encourages MPs to be much stronger partisans than in systems that have local representatives. This is extremely apparent when you look at countries like Netherlands and Israel. The word of the party leader is the law in those countries. You need to abide by the strictest party line or they can just drop you down the ranking on the list. It allows for a much more subtle way to silence dissent in parties. There are so many better ways to do Proportional Representation than list systems or the partial list system that is MMP.
Open List
@@Motofanable
Still doesn't work. A better PR system will still be the Irish system of electing multiple MPs per riding.
@@mattbenz99 Why doesn`t work?
Provided the lists don't appear in any order at all, as is the case in Finland and Switzerland, and only the markings voters provide with their ballots determine whom among the list is elected, then the exact same barrier is in place for candidates in both STV and list systems: Being nominated by the party at all, and some process inevitably happens with all parties to decide whom among themselves is nominated, even without a rank order. This could be a primary like America, a nominating convention like in Germany, a nomination contest like in Ireland or Canada, a committee like in Spain or New Zealand, or appointment by the leadership.
Why dosent New Zealand have a bigger parliament and which country has the most seats?
Riley Da Bozz
Which country has the most seats? I'd guess China, I think they have more than 2000 seats. (But don't quote me)
Why doesn't NZ have a bigger parliament? Do you really think they need more politicians! A small assembly actually has some advantages, firstly cost, and secondly in that the members can actually get to know each other and that makes compromises more likely. On that logic a parliament should have about a Dunbar's number of members (100 - 250), should be large enough to be representative, and as small as possible to reduce costs.
Also why dosent New Zealand have a bigger population?
Why do you think? Look at NZs history.
+Riley Da Bozz they aren't sexually active
+Riley Da Bozz New Zealand already has a large Parliament for its population. If New Zealand had the same proportion of MP's to voters as the UK, it would only have 65 seats.
So this would probably have resulted in a Conservative-UKIP-DUP coalition
Most probably.
If it’s more democratic then good
In this scenario, then, the Conservatives win under both systems, with the difference being that UKIP has some real influence.
They’d have considerable influence as without them theirs no conservative government. 😊
A mush better system by far compared to FPTP. You get a more proportional representation and still keep local reps. Win-win !
the problem with the UK system is that each seat is a "local seat" that represents a constituency. To use MMP or STV you need every seat to be up for grabs equally- meaning no local MPs, but Parliament seats allocated directly proportionate to the voting results. Germany, which leaves local rule to federated states, works this way; your vote ultimately decides who gets a seat in the national parliament, whether they represent you or not. Anyone who wants a real fair share of the vote- like UKIP and the Lib Dems but most clearly the Greens, now have representation without ties to any "safe seat" .
Literally anything is better than FPTP. MMP definitely isn't the best but if we ever get a chance we absolutely MUST take it at all costs.
I personally like first past the post. It's more stable to have a majority government. I would happily take MMP (or mixed member representation as we call it here) as a reluctant compromise though as it's been proven to be possible to get a majority.
Long term it will not be stable. FPTP worked when over 90% of votes cast were for Labour or Conservative. We now have a plurality of different parties and a system that does not represent them. Every election we have a government produced by an ever smaller slice of the electorate. This is not sustainable.
Zach Thornton 1 party still has overall control though. That allows that party to make the decisions themselves without having to make sacrifices in order to please the other parties. While coalitions are likely to happen if other parties continue to get power, other systems guarantee a coalition which is likely to just reduce stability.
The point I'm making is that the stability won't last, if people fundamentally feel that they've been disenfranchised by the voting system.
My family is very political and engaged. Yet many of my family members choose not to vote as there's no point. They live in areas where a Conservative MP has been returned for the last 100 years. Voting in constituencies like these is pointless and people know it.
Zach Thornton I'd say that your point doesn't make it unstable. There are many problems that FPTP does bring but that example I'd say isn't instability. The government can still react strongly to events while in coalition they can't as much. FPTP encourages defeatism and a distrust of the government but that doesn't make things unstable, not even in the long run. It'll take something significant to shake up the establishment - which isn't always the best thing when actual change needs to happen. However, the government will certainly be in control when bad situations happen.
Change can also happen under FPTP. I mean, look at Scotland. We were a labour stronghold rather recently - now labour have as much seats as every other party other than the SNP.
Personally, I don't really buy the FPTP stability/strong government argument; It does stabilise the election cycle since a majority party won't lose a confidence vote. However, you lose stability in policy areas as it's much easier for whoever is in government to make unilateral changes to programs, only to have the next government repeal those changes and so on, that's just a different type of instability.
How would the US Congress look under MMP?
I did a similar video on congress, but bases of the Dutch system, but since the US has only 2 parties of any note it's a much more hypothetical scenario.
Electoral threshold should be 3% at a maximum
or go Dutch style and set it at whatever is needed to win one seat.
No.
Of course, this is not really how the HoC would look under MMP. As you said, it assumes that people would vote in the same way with MMP and that the parties would win the same percentage of votes in a separate party vote. Both of those assumptions would almost certainly be untrue by a very long way.
@Soliloquy what do you think?
Since in Scotland there is a strong independence movement at last recorded power of 45%ish (likely lower due to non voters more likely to be status quo) then it would be very strange if the 45% got like 95% of the seats.
As Churchill said democracy is the 51% taking away the rights of the 49%.
Well I mean that's the issue with FPTP, a party can win all of the seats with far less than 50% of the vote if the remaining votes are split between other parties.
Soliloquy
I don't feel oppressed by the FPTP in the UK as a whole but in Scotland us Unionists are spat on.
In the Netherlands, you have to vote for the party and 1 politician on its list!
Or you could use stv...it seems less confusing
Well done! This is good work! Although, this is vastly incorrect as you are now assuming that the 650 constituencies turn into 325 which ruins the contsituency-mp link, and also I'm sure I wouldn't like to read the list of 325 list MPs for each party... This is a good idea, but really you would assume that you need more than 650 seats for the UK parliament, which is too much... Using FPTP is just an easier way for the UK, whilst PR using the dhont formula is great for the Scottish Parl
It would be likely the UK would divide itself up into regions which would decide on who would be on their lists, in what order, and would be the candidates you read about in the articles, just like it broke itself up into regions for European elections. Assuming about 14 seats on average per region, you'd have about 46 regions, some bigger and some smaller in some places like Northern Ireland and Northern Scotland perhaps only having 4-8 members in each region, while London might have a region with 20.
You can't actually be sure what it would look like under a different voting system, because people might vote differently anyway!
We in Britain do use MMP also known as AMS for devolved parliament elections, it does work well but I think STV could be better.
Including four non-voting speakers. He has three deputies.
first past the post is unfair
my only problem with scrapping fptp is how can the gov't pass laws considering it'll be harder for them to gain a majority. there'll be loads of coalitions.
Coalitions are not the end of the world. My country has never had a single party win a majority of seats f.e., and I expect this to be the case with many other countries that do not have FPTP. We btw do fine, no worse than the UK f.e.
Coalitions is not a bad thing. I don't know why people used to FPTP thinks that coalitions is a necessary evil. It's a bonus if you ask me, it forces people to work together, form alliances, negotiate, communicate and not polarize. and lastly it helps moderate legislation to avoid crazyness.
you don't need to have coalitions. the highest voted party can be considered in power but having more minority parties in seats just means that you have more checks and balances. only popular ideas that are agreed upon by a majority of seats can progress. every party has their good and bad policies that each can agree on, so this way you get the best of all worlds. the down side might be that not many decisions get made very quickly if every thing is constantly debated.
*if this WERE the system used in the house of commons
Overall it’s a good system, I just can’t get over the party control thing. If the parties were required to have elections for their lists then it’d be better, but then independents can’t even touch some seats.
Scotland has a system allowing independents to win. First off, any independent can win in an electorate (or constituency, district, riding, division, whatever you call them) by winning a plurality or majority (rules vary) of the votes in that area. The second way is that an independent can submit a list of one, IE themselves, and possibly if any other independents want in on the action, they can compete too that way, and if in the proportional area they have 16 seats to be elected, the independent gets at least 6.25% of the vote in the proportional area, they are assured to be elected.
As for party control, one option is to use completely open list systems like Finland, where by definition your place on the list order is defined by how many votes you got in the general election, with the voters having a ballot listing all the candidates each party proposes and voters can indicate preferences among them. If the lists don't have any ranking nor threshold system and use open lists, then the parties have no influence on this part of the process, the only question is whether they are nominated or not.
Parties do tend these days to be internally democratic to some degree. Some use general primaries like America, others have other kinds of meetings, but in general, you won't be a candidate if the membership doesn't support you, or at the very least the membership elects a candidate committee to consider possibilities and makes a selection, possibly subject to ratification by their membership.
@@robertjarman3703 Thank you :)
@@robertjarman3703 this is a remarkably stupid and pointless system that provides no tangible benefits to this country. The American primary system seems like a better fit for the uk.
UKIP would have had loads of season we would had PR. They got 5 million votes and got 1 MP... Scotland entire population is 5 million, and most of them don't vote, yet they get 50+ MPs.
House of Commons with 100 Seats.
Seats allocated in proportion to popular vote, rounded to the nearest 1.
51 Seats needed to form a government, either by majority or coalition under the largest party.
^ Much superior system.
One MP can't talk for multiple constituency's however, so good concept but the UK is too big for that.
***** Is the constituency system really so important? Surely it would be better to give more power to local councils so people can have close government that way? The national government is only for national business.
Not entirely. The good thing about constituencies is, that MPs are not only governed by national party interests, but have to represent their local base as well. That doesn't always work, as in the case of "safe seats" when the MP doesn't really need to take any notice of the constituency, but in theory it balances out his/her interests. The good thing about the NZ system (or the German one, which is comparable) is that you maintain that advantage while also having an overall result that much better reflects the political layout of th country. Having a landslide victory with 37% of the vote is ludicrous, of course.
Bom Cabedal I suppose, but I just think local government should be local and national government national, might just be me but I think it makes more sense. It also removes the laughable amount of over-representation the Scots get in Parliament...
Partly agreed. But I also think 100 representatives for a country the size of the UK is far too little. You also need MPs that actually have time to communicate with voters. In the Netherlands, we have only a hundred MPs and they are wholly subsumed into a political bubble that is all but impenetrable from outside.
Why don't you have the same amount of Subs as CGPGrey, You should
Partly because I haven't been making videos as long as him; i doubt I'll ever catch up with him though.
We have preferential voting in Australia and it gives a boost to the big parties
+Zachary Sabapathy preferential and proportional are not the same thing. Our House of Representatives uses AV, which is a non-proportional system.
Our Senate, though, uses a system called STV, which is a _fantastic_ system when used correctly (unfortunately, our implementation isn't great, because of the "group voting tickets" we use, which is what resulted in the sports party getting elected).. It _doesn't_ give a boost to big parties at all, and it far more closely represents how Australians vote.
Currently, no one party has a majority in the Senate. The LNP has 33 out of 76 seats. To reach a majority of 39, they need to negotiate with independents, minor parties, the Greens, or Labor, to get at least 6 more votes.
For reference, the Greens have 10 seats, and Labor has 25. There're 4 independents, and 4 people in parties with only 1 seat. That's a pretty damn good looking result, compared to FPTP, or even AV.
Just as a note, this is done in Scotland as well
Not... exactly.
The system in Scotland is similar to this... except its basically eight elections run like this, one for each electoral region. IE: If your region elects 16 MSPs and your party gets 50% of the vote in said region, you will get ~8 MSPs. Even if you won absolutely no votes elsewhere. Then the results of those elections are jumbled up together.
So for example, Lothian region elects 16 MSPs and has 9 constituencies with 7 additional MSPs. So if your party wins 3 constituencies and gets 20% of the vote, you get your three MSPs for Lothian and move on. If in another region you win no constituencies and get 25% of the vote in that region, you get 4 list MSPs and those move on to the overall parliament.
Its basically 8 MMP elections run all at once over a regional basis rather then at a national basis.
@@VhenRaTheRaptor Yeah, i do live there. It's really similar though
Lol look at Scotland already. It’s a mess.
can you to how MMP would of looked like in 2019 please
The Conservatives will win 183 seats directly in single member constituencies and 111 list seats for a total of 294, Labour wins 102 constituencies and 114 from their list for a total of 216, the SNP wins 25 seats in constituencies and 1 seat from their list for a total of 26, the Lib-Dems win 6 seats from constituencies and 72 from their list for a total of 78, the DUP wins 4 seats from constituencies and one list seat for a total of 5, Sinn Fein wins 4 constituency seats and 0 list, Plaid Cymru wins 2 constituencies and one list seat for a total of 3, the Social Democratic Labour Party of Northern Ireland wins one constituency and two list for a total of 3 seats, the Greens win one constituency and 17 list for a total of 18, the Alliance Party of Northern Ireland wins one constituency and 3 list, and the Speaker is elected too on a non partisan label.
A diagram of the seats can be found here: imgur.com/a/RWm5G99
@@robertjarman3703 thanks so much
People in the UK would probably not won't a PR system because we are hostile towards coalitions especially since the last coalition between the Conservatives and Lib Dems was a disaster.
With this proportional representation system, UKIP is stronger than ever.
what about if the US house was re-did under this system?
+Av Rand (TheAv66) In 2012, 96.4% of American voters voted for either a democratic or republican candidate for the House of Representatives, so the analysis is not as simple as in the UK where there are significant numbers of 3rd party candidates gaining votes. However, I am looking into doing a similar video on the US elections, so stay tuned.
If we had this we probably wouldn’t need devolution and wouldn’t have the SNP problem
And devolution is a problem, because...?
@@ethancoltrane5754 devolution gives the impression the goverenment has control of a country but in facrt is just a large local council .
One example is the fact scotland has the biggest "drug" problem in europe but has no power on legislation of illegal drugs.
Scotland has huge labour shortatge but has no control over immigration. ete etc
Ok, it doesn't seem to be a perfect solution (nothing in life ever is, really), but it's definitely a start, and that's why I've decided to hop on the UK federalism bandwagon.
@@ethancoltrane5754Devolution destroyed British party politics. Instead of one British general election devolution has divided the U.K. effectively into four separate regional elections.
Check out Awan-Scully’s book on this.
Full federalism or full unitary are the solutions. Tony Blair just did a half fix that only made the problem worse.
How many would vote UKIP now we are out of the EU?
youre still in the eu
theresa may just needs to finish her tea first
she just needs a couple more years to finish off that tea, and then we're good to go
If you are concerned about immigration, relaxing because of Brexit is dumb. In fact, given UKIP support collapsed in 2017 compared to 2015, lack of internal movement within Europe might just mean the UK ramps up immigration from the rest of the world. If some UK sectors are to survive they will need low paid workers.
@@grimm_plush the tea went cold and she did not want to finish it so she smashed the cup and destroyed the kitchen it came from
When you say "party" it sounds like "Paddy."
This would be sooooooooo much better! But Boris is too scared to change it!
My stupid phone keeps pausing the video... I'm worried I've been hacked
Germany divides the Bundestag (Ger. Parliament) in half and uses both systems. Seems to work well.
It has some Problems