As a socialist, I strongly disagree with Reform UK on basically every issue. However, I agree they are correct on the issue of FPTP, which is a blatantly undemocratic system.
No it’s not, people vote completely differently depending on the system labour would have gotten way more votes if it was proportional representation. Tons of people including myself, my mum, and my uncle voted strategically for Lib dem because we knew labour wouldn’t win in our area but we wanted to vote against the Tories. If it was proportional we would have all voted labour and so would have tons of other people. Most of the reform votes were literally protest votes against conservatives for the same reason. Furthermore, proportional representation doesn’t work in a parliamentary system because how do you assign MPs? MPs have to represent their constituents if you go for proportional representation you will likely end up with regions who’s MPs are not reflective of the way that region actually voted. All you proportional representation people don’t think of any of the actual logistical issues. You can’t just switch it to a proportional voting you’d have to completely rework the entire system. As an example, let’s say your vote is first past the post for your MP but proportional for the PM, that way your MP would still reflect your regions values. Well now you could easily end up with an PM of a party who didn’t get the most MPs which is exactly what happens often in the American Republican system and is why their politics are so often gridlocked!! Explain how you properly assign MPs to regions if proportional voting is enacted? If you can explain that then fine (you cannot). Furthermore, proportional voting tends to fracture nations even more as everyone can fully commit to their own niche views and no longer have to work with others, and the coalition governments that form are, as a result, weak and again get gridlocked and cannot pass any legislation or reforms. There are so many issues it is not nearly as simple as you think.
A proportional voting system would make some parties who only support a certain group instead of the country as a whole basically unkickable out of the parliament cuz they’ll get seats even if they lose by a lot
Terrible idea. It was rejected in 2011 because even the idiotic public knows it's terrible. Rank choice voting will just lead to more tactical voting than there already is, so it will just make a bad situation worse.
It doesn’t work in a system of MPs because how do you assign them? Furthermore; it’s stupid to compare these results and say this is what it would have been *if* it was proportional representation because first of all what proportional representation voting system are you using and secondly people would have voted completely differently. My mum and uncle both voted lib dem because it was strategic for their regions but if it was proportional, them, and many others would have just voted labour. This is farcical sore loser populism.
@@kristof6472 in your area you vote for the person you want to be your MP, your MP then decides what party they want to be in, if they change parties there is no new vote, even when they call out the votes its the person then their party affiliation
@@graveperil2169 so if there would be three parties, and in every single constituency party A would win with 34% of the vote over party B and C with 33%, two thirds of the country would go entirely unrepresented. Its not democratic. And we both know that most mp's dont give a single fuck about their constituency once theyre in parliament.
@@graveperil2169 the only other country that uses FPTP is Belarus. The argument that FPTP makes more stable governments is another absolute fallacy, because yes, less representative systems work better, is that a reason to have them in modern democratic nations? Democracy is about being able to compromise, which is completely dead in the UK. Second of all, what stability? Can anyone say that the past 14 years have been stable? Maybe Rishi's millionaire buddies, but to the average briton it has been a slog through crisises and difficulties.
As mentioned in the video there was a referendum to try and change the voting system in 2011 - those in favour of that haven't stopped calling for changes since just not been given much media coverage.
But a lot of people were doing tactical voting that’s why it’s so split? I wanted to vote Lib Dem but my constituency was a 50/50 toss up between Tory and Labour so I voted labour
@@jordank249 i prefer tactical voting where at least i get a less worse party instead of a coallition forming due to proportional voting where none of the changes i want actually happen, and all the changes i explicitly didnt want to happen do happen In proportional voting, we are basically allowing the politicians to choose which policies from which parties are acted upon, and we shouldnt be giving that power to the currupt politicians They should be working for us, not taking the power and betraying us Yes, the system is broken, but its way better than a proportional voting system To be fair, you didnt say proportional voting is better, just that its currently broken But still, i much prefer being forced to pick the lesser evil instead of picking smaller parties that will be mis-represented and taken advantage of and unheard and allowing currupt politicians get their way
@@the_luna_lily6234 Tactical voting simply is not acceptable. Both major parties are awful, in both the UK and the US. The idea that either those groups are the best we can do is asinine. The system is broken; and the corrupt politicians benefit from it. There's preferential voting too, like they use in Australia. It has forced the major parties to compete and introduce policies that don't suck. Literally anything would be better than the sixth-rate FPTP system.
The first step to removing tactical voting is the remove the dog turd first past the post system. Tactical voting has been a long standing thing, but no parliament wants to remove first past the post because they (Labour and Conservative) benefit from it as they only have on opponent like that.
PR means proportional representation. where the number of votes nationally turns into the proportion of members of Parliament each party has. The system we have is first past the post which means the country is divided into small areas called constituencies and who ever gets most votes in that area becomes it's member of parliament the benefit of this system is that the area has a local representative .The drawback is that a party can get many votes nationally but not get many members of Parliament, because they came second in individual constituencies. We had a referendum to see if the public wanted to change the system and the result said no A few years later we had a referendum about leaving the EU which narrowly voted to leave. My point in the original comment was that Reform are calling for voting change which would overturn the PR referendum, but they wouldn't like the EU referendum to be overturned..
Labour won, and with a majority big enough to actually make a difference to the utter devastation the tories have visited on our country at grass roots level. So, I’m happy with the current voting system. It will help keep the Tories out for as long as possible 👍🇬🇧🌈♥️
No, it won't. Our fptp system is deliberately rigged to make it more likely for the conservatives to win. Labour will be lucky to manage two terms before our right-wing media drag them down and the Tories get back in. We've just had 14 years of Tory rule precisely because people didn't recognise the deliberate bias our current system has.
Labour won that majority with almost the same vote share as John Major got in 1997!! Wouldn't take much for the Tories or even Reform UK to overturn Labour under this system - after all we all though that the 2019 result would leave the Tories in office for a decade or so.
Labour won with 9.7 million votes 33.7% of the vote. It’s concerning. 2019 Labour got 32% of the vote which equated to 10.2 million votes. Despite the Tories having the worst government in history and living standards decreased drastically, the 2024 Labour Party convinced less people to vote for them than 2019 where Labour lost terribly…this is not good.
Overwhelming hmm the turn out for the vote was dire because it was held almost immediately after the election without debate or discussion... It was total BS...
Since 1918, only once has the winning party received more than 50% of the vote. That was back in 1931. In 2019, a little more than 43% voted for the Tories, so most people got what they did not vote for the Tories. Why is it suddenly being discussed? Even if we introduce PR, most people will get a government that they didn't vote for. I'm not arguing against PR, but you should make yourself aware of its flaws.
Labour got 33.7% of the vote, so no, the majority didn't get what they wanted!! In fact the Labour vote share this time is barely above what John Major got in 1997!!!
@@quintuscrinis8032 Vote share is irrelevant in a FPTP system. A party can receive the highest vote share yet still lose the election. It makes no difference whether you get one vote or twenty thousand votes more than the second-placed candidate. Labour won more seats so, Labour formed the government. To coin a phrase, it's the will of the British people.
@gio-oz8gf Labour won the election, yes, and that was how the system works, I am not disputing that at all. However, it is quite a different thing to suggest that that is what the majority of people wanted! A majority is 50% - Labour were a long way off getting 50% of the votes. Thus the majority did not want or vote for them. Using the failed FPTP system to argue that this election got what people wanted is just wrong.
Stop kidding yourself the biggest divide is between Tory areas and Labour areas, it takes far more labour votes to win a seat then it does a Tory because labour seats are typically in denser populated areas and safe Tory seats are in rural areas.
The 2011 change was rejected because it STILL DOESN'T address the first past the post issue. The proposed idea was beyond stupid because, one, the vast majority of people voting already vote based on the party leader, not their local MP, meaning they don't even know the policies of their local MP and the alternative basically required people to be more knowledgeable about other parties (which is not going to happen) and will actually result in more tactical voting in fear that voting anyone else will lead to their votes going to a party they don't want. Two, as mentioned, the proposed idea does NOT remove first past the post, meaning that issue will still persist. The proposed idea of a more fair distribution based on the number of votes seems better, but actually not. Constituencies with a higher populace will have more influence on the outcome, therefore the local MP, the parties involved, and most importantly, the party leader, will simply tailor their policies in favour of these places to get more votes. Guess which areas have the highest populace? Yeah, the London area. As bad as the current situation is with the difference between affluent areas and not-so-affluent areas, the proposed system will only make it worse. The first and most important step is removing this dog turd first past the post system, that was adopted because the UK needed quick leadership during World War II. We're almost 80 years past the end of World War II, this anachronistic system should've been thrown out a long time ago.
It's worked in our favour though, for reform uk it just means 14% of the population are "like that" and perhaps thankfully they're spread across the UK rather than being confined to one area
The system put forward when we had the 2011 referendum was complicated and not easily explained so it was rejected. There are a few different options for PR and we could choose sn option that suits us. In any event something needs to be done because more and more people will stop voting if they think their vote is worth nothing
Its the same all around the world, the two party system is so far out of date it isnt funny. There are way toooooooooo many of minority parties too. Why not have 5 big partys and whoever wins, that the winner. All i know is the 2 big partys is done
We cant use a proportional system until we raise the voting numbers. At 60% or less the regional representation will be the same as now. i.e. nothing unless you voted for the winner. When we get to a minimum of 70% it would make more sense. Until the apathy for voting is destroyed, the voting system will be best to remain the way it is now.
Merge each constituency with one neighbour. You vote for your MP in that constituency, and also a national party. The remaining 325 seats are used for people picked by the parties to make it proportional. It's what Germany use and it works just fine
more people would go out and vote if introduced, feeling their vote would mean more. Think there was a lot of tactical voting this election as many wanted the tories out so voted for the party who had the most chance (in their area) of achieving this. It’s hard to really know which party had the most votes with tactical voting.
Disagree, democracy and politics should be about discussion and building on common-ground and working together, many councillors from different parties are required to work together and if we look at pr systems in Europe and elsewhere it’s pretty effective. But really the difference is do you want each person’s vote to be equal and equally representative in parliament and in our democracy? If so then you’d look into the benefits of PR and support reform in the system. But if not then yeah stick with fptp
We should have vote off elections, you tick the boxes of what you want to change or happen in the UK or particularly policy's party's aim or strive for then once the first round is done (eliminating the lowest parties) it happens again giving a clear goal and understanding of who is wanted by the nation not stuck with two choices
Labour won with 9.7 million votes 33.7% of the vote share. It’s concerning. 2019 Labour received 32% of the vote share which equated to 10.2 million votes. Despite the Tories having the worst government in history and living standards decreased drastically, the 2024 Labour Party convinced less people to vote for them than 2019 where Labour lost terribly…this is not good. In 2017 Labour received 40% of the vote share 12.8 million votes, and yet were still a fair bit off getting anywhere close to government. And it’s worse for parties like the Greens, Lib Dem’s, Reform - whether you agree with them or not every person’s vote should be equal and be properly reflected in parliament - this is how democracy thrives
Has the way that votes to seats has been tuned to favour the labour, libdems and tories parties, to keep new parties out of power like Reform UK? It does seem strange that the libdems got a lot more seats than Reform UK, but got fewer votes?
What their is no issues what so ever, you stand for election in a particular area and get more vote that anyone else standing in that area and your the winner How much more simple can you make it If you go by the % of total votes how can you decide which MP win, after all you voting for a MP to seat in Parliament not for what party you want to win If you vote for what party then how does the party decide who gets elected The UK has it right while most other countries don’t
The biggest problem is that the current government is essentially a government that got elected by the minority of people, essentially what we have is a system for the Few and not the Many, a famous Labour Slogan that Labour doesn't live up to, there is more voters against the government than there is supporting the government, 70% ofnthe voters didn't vote for Labour yet Labour believes they have a mandate from the people. They don't, that's the problem. 2 ways we can make the system fairer: Proportional Representation or mandatory voting because the government is always elected by a minority of people.
@@whitehorsemilitia what rubbish if you have to vote for a party not a person (MP) then you have no one to represent your consistency and therefore no one to represent the voter in the area they live in. And that then means the party can then pick anyone in the cabinet rather than a person that was chosen by the people
In finland, there are constituencies which are much larger and each (major) party has multiple candidates. The more votes the candidate which has the most votes out of each party gets, it helps the other candidates from that same party. This way you can vote for both candidate and party.
You can’t even use the right type of “there” 😂 also it’s so flawed - not all votes are equal , you have tactical voting to just keep the party you dislike out of power and only marginal seats matter. In this general election, the Green Party, Reform UK and Scottish National Party received more than 23% (6.7 million) of votes between them, yet they shared just 2.7% of seats (18).🤷♂️ not exactly representative of what millions of people want
the US electoral college is the same… unlike the UK, the electoral system is based on proportional representation - the UK’s system is archaic and should either be representative of voting districts or a vote for the man and divvy the votes up after that.
As a socialist, I strongly disagree with Reform UK on basically every issue.
However, I agree they are correct on the issue of FPTP, which is a blatantly undemocratic system.
No it’s not, people vote completely differently depending on the system labour would have gotten way more votes if it was proportional representation. Tons of people including myself, my mum, and my uncle voted strategically for Lib dem because we knew labour wouldn’t win in our area but we wanted to vote against the Tories. If it was proportional we would have all voted labour and so would have tons of other people. Most of the reform votes were literally protest votes against conservatives for the same reason. Furthermore, proportional representation doesn’t work in a parliamentary system because how do you assign MPs?
MPs have to represent their constituents if you go for proportional representation you will likely end up with regions who’s MPs are not reflective of the way that region actually voted. All you proportional representation people don’t think of any of the actual logistical issues. You can’t just switch it to a proportional voting you’d have to completely rework the entire system.
As an example, let’s say your vote is first past the post for your MP but proportional for the PM, that way your MP would still reflect your regions values. Well now you could easily end up with an PM of a party who didn’t get the most MPs which is exactly what happens often in the American Republican system and is why their politics are so often gridlocked!! Explain how you properly assign MPs to regions if proportional voting is enacted? If you can explain that then fine (you cannot). Furthermore, proportional voting tends to fracture nations even more as everyone can fully commit to their own niche views and no longer have to work with others, and the coalition governments that form are, as a result, weak and again get gridlocked and cannot pass any legislation or reforms.
There are so many issues it is not nearly as simple as you think.
A proportional voting system would make some parties who only support a certain group instead of the country as a whole basically unkickable out of the parliament cuz they’ll get seats even if they lose by a lot
@@MooohGXDon’t worry, we have proportional voting in Sweden and our democracy is doing fine.
As a socialist you should join the revolutionary communist party! We need the working class organised!
@@doc14295fuck no eww
At least they are having a discussion about it. Wish we could do the same here in the US.
And here in Australia too.
Don’t worry all of our countries are fucked we are all in same boat
Rank choice voting!
Terrible idea. It was rejected in 2011 because even the idiotic public knows it's terrible.
Rank choice voting will just lead to more tactical voting than there already is, so it will just make a bad situation worse.
Go for proportional representing
Yeah and end up like my country NZ totally destroyed and heading to 3rd world country status.
It doesn’t work in a system of MPs because how do you assign them? Furthermore; it’s stupid to compare these results and say this is what it would have been *if* it was proportional representation because first of all what proportional representation voting system are you using and secondly people would have voted completely differently. My mum and uncle both voted lib dem because it was strategic for their regions but if it was proportional, them, and many others would have just voted labour. This is farcical sore loser populism.
@Moobeus yeah ant it'll soon turn into buyers regret, it's just what politicians do everywhere, LIE.
You been living in the UK? lol idiot
@@MoobeusYou can use Proportional past the post. It’s like PR but with MPs winning seats where they got the highest shares.
the UK system is designed for electing MP's not parties
That doesnt make any sense
@@kristof6472 in your area you vote for the person you want to be your MP, your MP then decides what party they want to be in, if they change parties there is no new vote, even when they call out the votes its the person then their party affiliation
@@graveperil2169 so if there would be three parties, and in every single constituency party A would win with 34% of the vote over party B and C with 33%, two thirds of the country would go entirely unrepresented. Its not democratic. And we both know that most mp's dont give a single fuck about their constituency once theyre in parliament.
@@graveperil2169 the only other country that uses FPTP is Belarus. The argument that FPTP makes more stable governments is another absolute fallacy, because yes, less representative systems work better, is that a reason to have them in modern democratic nations? Democracy is about being able to compromise, which is completely dead in the UK. Second of all, what stability? Can anyone say that the past 14 years have been stable? Maybe Rishi's millionaire buddies, but to the average briton it has been a slog through crisises and difficulties.
@@kristof6472 it works to be in power you need a reasonable level of support across a large number of locations
The Alternative Vote (IRV) was NOT more proportional. It was a completely different system, much more similar to FPTP.
Ok so last 14 years we been getting conservatives under the same system no one wanted a change now Labour got in now we want a change 😂😂😂
As mentioned in the video there was a referendum to try and change the voting system in 2011 - those in favour of that haven't stopped calling for changes since just not been given much media coverage.
Are you surprised ? Labour will have sharia law in this country in no time at all so we want it to change asap and let reform sort it out
@Windup-merchant lol, I'm not a Labour supporter hy nature, but still whatever you are on, I want somr.
@@quintuscrinis8032 wasn’t speaking to you anyway but alright mate 👍 you laugh at me now but it’s only a matter of time until England is Islamic
@@quintuscrinis8032 first past the post doesn’t work end of story 👍 23% of votes - (6.7 million)got 18 seats In parliament 🤦♂️ it’s a joke
But a lot of people were doing tactical voting that’s why it’s so split? I wanted to vote Lib Dem but my constituency was a 50/50 toss up between Tory and Labour so I voted labour
Tactical voting is the hallmark of a broken system; when you have to vote for who you hate less.
@@jordank249 i prefer tactical voting where at least i get a less worse party instead of a coallition forming due to proportional voting where none of the changes i want actually happen, and all the changes i explicitly didnt want to happen do happen
In proportional voting, we are basically allowing the politicians to choose which policies from which parties are acted upon, and we shouldnt be giving that power to the currupt politicians
They should be working for us, not taking the power and betraying us
Yes, the system is broken, but its way better than a proportional voting system
To be fair, you didnt say proportional voting is better, just that its currently broken
But still, i much prefer being forced to pick the lesser evil instead of picking smaller parties that will be mis-represented and taken advantage of and unheard and allowing currupt politicians get their way
@@the_luna_lily6234 Tactical voting simply is not acceptable. Both major parties are awful, in both the UK and the US. The idea that either those groups are the best we can do is asinine.
The system is broken; and the corrupt politicians benefit from it.
There's preferential voting too, like they use in Australia. It has forced the major parties to compete and introduce policies that don't suck.
Literally anything would be better than the sixth-rate FPTP system.
The first step to removing tactical voting is the remove the dog turd first past the post system.
Tactical voting has been a long standing thing, but no parliament wants to remove first past the post because they (Labour and Conservative) benefit from it as they only have on opponent like that.
Should review whatever voting system was used for Brexit- how do you vote for the end of your own country? Seems fishy
That was definitely first past the post
@@jesush.tap-dancingchrist7328 seems like a Russian psi-op. Day after Brexit Nigel Farage was on video leaving the Russian embassy. Sus
@@harurubenrefreshing to hear someone say that!
@@harurubenYou talk rubbish.
@haruruben you talk rubbish
Are reform saying we should ignore the result of the referendum on PR? If so any other referendum could be overturned.
What does PR mean in this context?
PR means proportional representation. where the number of votes nationally turns into the proportion of members of Parliament each party has. The system we have is first past the post which means the country is divided into small areas called constituencies and who ever gets most votes in that area becomes it's member of parliament the benefit of this system is that the area has a local representative .The drawback is that a party can get many votes nationally but not get many members of Parliament, because they came second in individual constituencies. We had a referendum to see if the public wanted to change the system and the result said no A few years later we had a referendum about leaving the EU which narrowly voted to leave. My point in the original comment was that Reform are calling for voting change which would overturn the PR referendum, but they wouldn't like the EU referendum to be overturned..
Your point is moot because we never had a referendum on PR
Scrap the BBC's TV licence Fee.
British in name but not by nature.
😮
Labour won, and with a majority big enough to actually make a difference to the utter devastation the tories have visited on our country at grass roots level. So, I’m happy with the current voting system. It will help keep the Tories out for as long as possible 👍🇬🇧🌈♥️
No, it won't.
Our fptp system is deliberately rigged to make it more likely for the conservatives to win. Labour will be lucky to manage two terms before our right-wing media drag them down and the Tories get back in.
We've just had 14 years of Tory rule precisely because people didn't recognise the deliberate bias our current system has.
Labour won that majority with almost the same vote share as John Major got in 1997!!
Wouldn't take much for the Tories or even Reform UK to overturn Labour under this system - after all we all though that the 2019 result would leave the Tories in office for a decade or so.
@@quintuscrinis8032win, won, came first, your understanding of English is very poor, you must be privately educated 😂🤣🤣🤣
Labour won with 9.7 million votes 33.7% of the vote. It’s concerning. 2019 Labour got 32% of the vote which equated to 10.2 million votes. Despite the Tories having the worst government in history and living standards decreased drastically, the 2024 Labour Party convinced less people to vote for them than 2019 where Labour lost terribly…this is not good.
Well duh, but you wouldn’t have said that 14 years ago would you?
Same as Canada terrible voting rules n regulations
Reform UK should've focused on about 20 seats rather than the whole of the UK.
Overwhelming hmm the turn out for the vote was dire because it was held almost immediately after the election without debate or discussion... It was total BS...
Just shows that if you stuff up while in power the people will give you the boot no matter what party your in.
As sad as it'd be for reform to win more seats, i was shocked at the disproportion between votes and seats for both them and the other parties
Proportional representation would just mean the government will never get anything passed in parliament.
Why was this never an issue when the Tories won with only 40% of the electorate but because it’s labour suddenly it’s an issue. Why now??
It depends on the ruling party's willingness to represent all through the stats of the election. 2 different things.
Most people got what they didn’t vote for. Labour!
Since 1918, only once has the winning party received more than 50% of the vote. That was back in 1931. In 2019, a little more than 43% voted for the Tories, so most people got what they did not vote for the Tories. Why is it suddenly being discussed? Even if we introduce PR, most people will get a government that they didn't vote for. I'm not arguing against PR, but you should make yourself aware of its flaws.
Hey stop educating them! They'll run out of things to blame
Labour got 33.7% of the vote, so no, the majority didn't get what they wanted!!
In fact the Labour vote share this time is barely above what John Major got in 1997!!!
@@quintuscrinis8032 Vote share is irrelevant in a FPTP system. A party can receive the highest vote share yet still lose the election. It makes no difference whether you get one vote or twenty thousand votes more than the second-placed candidate. Labour won more seats so, Labour formed the government. To coin a phrase, it's the will of the British people.
@gio-oz8gf Labour won the election, yes, and that was how the system works, I am not disputing that at all.
However, it is quite a different thing to suggest that that is what the majority of people wanted!
A majority is 50% - Labour were a long way off getting 50% of the votes. Thus the majority did not want or vote for them. Using the failed FPTP system to argue that this election got what people wanted is just wrong.
Because the alternative at that time was AV.
Stop kidding yourself the biggest divide is between Tory areas and Labour areas, it takes far more labour votes to win a seat then it does a Tory because labour seats are typically in denser populated areas and safe Tory seats are in rural areas.
The 2011 change was rejected because it STILL DOESN'T address the first past the post issue.
The proposed idea was beyond stupid because, one, the vast majority of people voting already vote based on the party leader, not their local MP, meaning they don't even know the policies of their local MP and the alternative basically required people to be more knowledgeable about other parties (which is not going to happen) and will actually result in more tactical voting in fear that voting anyone else will lead to their votes going to a party they don't want.
Two, as mentioned, the proposed idea does NOT remove first past the post, meaning that issue will still persist.
The proposed idea of a more fair distribution based on the number of votes seems better, but actually not. Constituencies with a higher populace will have more influence on the outcome, therefore the local MP, the parties involved, and most importantly, the party leader, will simply tailor their policies in favour of these places to get more votes. Guess which areas have the highest populace? Yeah, the London area. As bad as the current situation is with the difference between affluent areas and not-so-affluent areas, the proposed system will only make it worse.
The first and most important step is removing this dog turd first past the post system, that was adopted because the UK needed quick leadership during World War II. We're almost 80 years past the end of World War II, this anachronistic system should've been thrown out a long time ago.
It's worked in our favour though, for reform uk it just means 14% of the population are "like that" and perhaps thankfully they're spread across the UK rather than being confined to one area
The system put forward when we had the 2011 referendum was complicated and not easily explained so it was rejected. There are a few different options for PR and we could choose sn option that suits us. In any event something needs to be done because more and more people will stop voting if they think their vote is worth nothing
Its the same all around the world, the two party system is so far out of date it isnt funny. There are way toooooooooo many of minority parties too. Why not have 5 big partys and whoever wins, that the winner. All i know is the 2 big partys is done
Australia voting is compulsory and we have proportional representation system..works well
We cant use a proportional system until we raise the voting numbers. At 60% or less the regional representation will be the same as now. i.e. nothing unless you voted for the winner. When we get to a minimum of 70% it would make more sense. Until the apathy for voting is destroyed, the voting system will be best to remain the way it is now.
So then what, you’d just vote for a party, and have your representative picked by the party later? This doesn’t make sense.
Merge each constituency with one neighbour. You vote for your MP in that constituency, and also a national party. The remaining 325 seats are used for people picked by the parties to make it proportional. It's what Germany use and it works just fine
I recommend doing some research to see what proportional representation entails and the benefits of it over fptp and vis versa
No wonder nothing ever get done in British politics.
more people would go out and vote if introduced, feeling their vote would mean more. Think there was a lot of tactical voting this election as many wanted the tories out so voted for the party who had the most chance (in their area) of achieving this. It’s hard to really know which party had the most votes with tactical voting.
Vote Reform
REFORM
One day we may live in a real democracy
Once Starmer (remrats) has been in number 10 for 6 months the UK will be calling for a new election 😂😂
I agree with the current way of voting as otherwise it will get very messy
Disagree, democracy and politics should be about discussion and building on common-ground and working together, many councillors from different parties are required to work together and if we look at pr systems in Europe and elsewhere it’s pretty effective.
But really the difference is do you want each person’s vote to be equal and equally representative in parliament and in our democracy? If so then you’d look into the benefits of PR and support reform in the system. But if not then yeah stick with fptp
bad choice
Wife looks very young
We should have vote off elections, you tick the boxes of what you want to change or happen in the UK or particularly policy's party's aim or strive for then once the first round is done (eliminating the lowest parties) it happens again giving a clear goal and understanding of who is wanted by the nation not stuck with two choices
"our ideas aren't popular" so therefore: "the system is rigged"
No-one's policies were popular this time - Labour's win this time was barely bigger in vote share than John Major's result in 1997!!!
Labour won with 9.7 million votes 33.7% of the vote share. It’s concerning. 2019 Labour received 32% of the vote share which equated to 10.2 million votes. Despite the Tories having the worst government in history and living standards decreased drastically, the 2024 Labour Party convinced less people to vote for them than 2019 where Labour lost terribly…this is not good. In 2017 Labour received 40% of the vote share 12.8 million votes, and yet were still a fair bit off getting anywhere close to government.
And it’s worse for parties like the Greens, Lib Dem’s, Reform - whether you agree with them or not every person’s vote should be equal and be properly reflected in parliament - this is how democracy thrives
great hair
Has the way that votes to seats has been tuned to favour the labour, libdems and tories parties, to keep new parties out of power like Reform UK?
It does seem strange that the libdems got a lot more seats than Reform UK, but got fewer votes?
17.5 miion vote for reform
What their is no issues what so ever, you stand for election in a particular area and get more vote that anyone else standing in that area and your the winner
How much more simple can you make it
If you go by the % of total votes how can you decide which MP win, after all you voting for a MP to seat in Parliament not for what party you want to win
If you vote for what party then how does the party decide who gets elected
The UK has it right while most other countries don’t
The biggest problem is that the current government is essentially a government that got elected by the minority of people, essentially what we have is a system for the Few and not the Many, a famous Labour Slogan that Labour doesn't live up to, there is more voters against the government than there is supporting the government, 70% ofnthe voters didn't vote for Labour yet Labour believes they have a mandate from the people. They don't, that's the problem.
2 ways we can make the system fairer: Proportional Representation or mandatory voting because the government is always elected by a minority of people.
@@whitehorsemilitia what rubbish if you have to vote for a party not a person (MP) then you have no one to represent your consistency and therefore no one to represent the voter in the area they live in.
And that then means the party can then pick anyone in the cabinet rather than a person that was chosen by the people
In finland, there are constituencies which are much larger and each (major) party has multiple candidates. The more votes the candidate which has the most votes out of each party gets, it helps the other candidates from that same party.
This way you can vote for both candidate and party.
@@luxid413 in 63% of the areas that voted Labour had more support than any other party
You can’t even use the right type of “there” 😂 also it’s so flawed - not all votes are equal , you have tactical voting to just keep the party you dislike out of power and only marginal seats matter. In this general election, the Green Party, Reform UK and Scottish National Party received more than 23% (6.7 million) of votes between them, yet they shared just 2.7% of seats (18).🤷♂️ not exactly representative of what millions of people want
All rigged anyway 😅
ii thought he is ROSS! 😂😂- from FRIENDS
Freemason still in power
Funny it was never an issue in the past
the US electoral college is the same… unlike the UK, the electoral system is based on proportional representation - the UK’s system is archaic and should either be representative of voting districts or a vote for the man and divvy the votes up after that.
most US electoral college votes can be cast in what ever way the state wants it has nothing to do with how the people in the state votes