• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

UK voting system

Status
Not open for further replies.

hexagon789

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Sep 2016
Messages
15,713
Location
Glasgow
Again AMS presents a good solution. Everybody gets their own FPTP MP, representing a constituency 50-100% larger than now (and potentially no bigger at all if you increase the number of MPs a bit), and then you have a pool of party list members. The way these work across relatively small regions in Scotland means that effectively you have your own MSP to contact, and then probably a regional MSP from your preferred party to contact if you get no joy from them.

You've explained that better than I did! That's exactly what I meant and is the main reason I find AMS the most preferable of the proportional systems out there.

Another option would be Mixed Member Majoritarian sometimes termed 'parallel' voting. It's exactly like AMS but the additional members or lists seats are entirely seperate, the FPTP are not taken into consideration when allocating the list seats.

Consequently it is less proportional than AMS but you at least still have better representation for smaller parties.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

102 fan

Member
Joined
14 May 2007
Messages
769
I always find it's the loosing side that complains about the UK voting system. I don't remember any complaints when Blair's Labour won 3 times......
 

DB

Guest
Joined
18 Nov 2009
Messages
5,036
I always find it's the loosing side that complains about the UK voting system. I don't remember any complaints when Blair's Labour won 3 times......

Clearly you weren't paying attention...

You are also assuming that everyone supports one of the two main parties. FPTP is hopeless for any other party.
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,024
Location
SE London
The one thing I’ve always struggled with to understand in multi-member constituencies is who to write to if there is a problem.

Currently many councils have the worst of both worlds with both wards with more than one Councillor, but still having FPTP.

With a recent issue I had locally I ended up writing to all three Councillors (fortunately they are all the same party, yet despite coping in all 3 to the original email got a reply from each one indicating what they had all done), on top of that I then wrote to the London Assembly members; of which I not only have one "local" (he represents nearly 650,000 people), but also 11 London-wide members, in this instance quite whom (if any) I should communicate any problems to is unclear.

That ought in principle to be solvable. My first thought, is some system where, you can either write to an MP/councillor of your choice, in which case it's their responsibility to answer it. Or you can write to all simultaneously, in which case they should have some shared database system that allows any one of them to pick up your case, and then the others back out. Obviously would require cooperation amongst the representatives of each constituency.
 

GusB

Established Member
Associate Staff
Buses & Coaches
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
6,543
Location
Elginshire
I think the AMS system works fairly well - I can at least say that I got what I voted for. My constituency MSP is Richard Lochhead, for whom I voted on that ballot paper, and my second (Green) vote returned a Green candidate in the list vote (although I have mixed feelings about John Finnie). The Tories have three regional seats, Labour have two and the LibDems. If I happened to be a Tory voter, I may not have representation at constituency level, but I'd still have three regional representatives whom I could contact if I were unhappy with the policies of the government, and likewise with Labour.

That ought in principle to be solvable. My first thought, is some system where, you can either write to an MP/councillor of your choice, in which case it's their responsibility to answer it. Or you can write to all simultaneously, in which case they should have some shared database system that allows any one of them to pick up your case, and then the others back out. Obviously would require cooperation amongst the representatives of each constituency.

I believe you're only supposed to contact one representative at a time. According to writetothem.com :
7 Highlands and Islands Scottish Parliament region MSPs also represent you; if you are writing on a constituency matter or similar local or personal problem, please write to your constituency MSP above, or pick just one of your regional MSPs. Only one MSP is allowed to help you at a time.
 

317 forever

Established Member
Joined
21 Aug 2010
Messages
2,544
Location
North West
Look what happened before the last general election when we had a minority government. It was chaos in parliament. Not sure I want to see that again.

The real losers in recent years under FPTP have been UKIP who polled many millions of votes, many more than the SNP, but only ever had one seat.

In terms of MPs I see your point entirely. However, UKIP did achieve their aspiration of Brexit despite their lack of MPs. (In part David Cameron may have promised the referendum as a result of fearing sufficient voter defection to UKIP to cause enough seat losses to Labour or the LibDems and thus lose office). Even Nigel Farage ca 2017 gloated that you don't necessarily need Westminster representation to achieve your goals. <(
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
In terms of MPs I see your point entirely. However, UKIP did achieve their aspiration of Brexit despite their lack of MPs. (In part David Cameron may have promised the referendum as a result of fearing sufficient voter defection to UKIP to cause enough seat losses to Labour or the LibDems and thus lose office). Even Nigel Farage ca 2017 gloated that you don't necessarily need Westminster representation to achieve your goals. <(
Perfect example of how a small party can impose an extreme policy in a FPTP system, something some people believe only happens with proportional systems as a price of coalition-building.

(Brexit didn't turn out to be an extreme viewpoint in the referendum, for all sorts of reasons that aren't for this thread, but it just wasn't on most people's radar until forced onto the agenda by Farage and co).
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
13,305
Location
Isle of Man
FPTP works where you get a strong majority for one party, but with the payoff that most people didn't vote for the governing party.

Where you don't get that strong majority, small parties have a disproportionate effect on policy compared to their size. We saw this with the UUP with Major's minority government and the DUP with May's minority government, in both cases the Unionists being the tail wagging the dog.
 

takno

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
5,037
FPTP works where you get a strong majority for one party, but with the payoff that most people didn't vote for the governing party.

Where you don't get that strong majority, small parties have a disproportionate effect on policy compared to their size. We saw this with the UUP with Major's minority government and the DUP with May's minority government, in both cases the Unionists being the tail wagging the dog.
Major had an effective majority throughout, once you discount the speaker and the Sinn Feinn seats. I'm not sure the UUP party were all that influential, since I don't recall them having an agreement. In the DUP's case they got a billion quid of investment for NI, which isn't all that significant and only just about covered the cost the cash-for-ash.
 

brad465

Established Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
6,968
Location
Taunton or Kent
In terms of MPs I see your point entirely. However, UKIP did achieve their aspiration of Brexit despite their lack of MPs. (In part David Cameron may have promised the referendum as a result of fearing sufficient voter defection to UKIP to cause enough seat losses to Labour or the LibDems and thus lose office). Even Nigel Farage ca 2017 gloated that you don't necessarily need Westminster representation to achieve your goals. <(
Perfect example of how a small party can impose an extreme policy in a FPTP system, something some people believe only happens with proportional systems as a price of coalition-building.

(Brexit didn't turn out to be an extreme viewpoint in the referendum, for all sorts of reasons that aren't for this thread, but it just wasn't on most people's radar until forced onto the agenda by Farage and co).
Yes and in 2019 it appears the Tory party went even further and coerced Brexit Party candidates to stand down, one of two effective election pacts (the other being the remain alliance) which cheated the electorate and would never have happened under a PR system, as election pacts would have otherwise been obsolete.

If Farage or someone else forms another small right wing party in the coming years the Tory party will treat them with more contempt than they would typically treat Labour, even though their views are similar, because they know they'd lose more votes to them specifically than to Labour.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
Yes and in 2019 it appears the Tory party went even further and coerced Brexit Party candidates to stand down, one of two effective election pacts (the other being the remain alliance) which cheated the electorate and would never have happened under a PR system, as election pacts would have otherwise been obsolete.

If Farage or someone else forms another small right wing party in the coming years the Tory party will treat them with more contempt than they would typically treat Labour, even though their views are similar, because they know they'd lose more votes to them specifically than to Labour.
I wouldn't describe the remain alliance as effective.

It's quite possible that in the situation you describe the Tories would do what they did in 2016 and since, and just move onto the ground of the small right-wing party. Thereby denying a voice to the much larger group whose views are more centrist, just as Labour did with Corbyn.
 

brad465

Established Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
6,968
Location
Taunton or Kent
I wouldn't describe the remain alliance as effective.

It's quite possible that in the situation you describe the Tories would do what they did in 2016 and since, and just move onto the ground of the small right-wing party. Thereby denying a voice to the much larger group whose views are more centrist, just as Labour did with Corbyn.
Apologies I meant effective in the definition of existing in fact though not formally acknowledged, which was the Brexit party agreement, but yes that also doesn't apply to the remain alliance so I wrongly phrased it.

I agree they would likely move onto them, and I hope this time if they do they're seriously called out as committing a cowardly move in the process, but once again furthers the argument against FPTP. The party's advances onto a small right wing party is also why so many true Conservative MPs lost the whip last year (albeit temporarily for some), where some have described the Conservative party as having "left them".
 

Senex

Established Member
Joined
1 Apr 2014
Messages
2,752
Location
York
Why does it seem so hard for any sort of centerist party to exist in Britain, even though there seems to be some evidence that most of the electorate are broadly centerist (or a little to the left/right of centre) in their views? The Tories may look as if they are coming to the middle for some years, but then (as now) they head off to the far right again, and Labour do the same at the other end of the scale, leaving no home for the centerist voter. In days of old the Liberals were a genuine centre party, but that seems to have ceased long since to be the case, so that now they seem to either a party that no-one can pin down to anything or a group rather to the left of Labour. What have we all got against being of the centre?
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,691
Location
Scotland
The Tories may look as if they are coming to the middle for some years, but then (as now) they head off to the far right again, and Labour do the same at the other end of the scale, leaving no home for the centerist voter.
Labour under Corbyn was definitely heading towards the unelectable extremes of the left, Starmer seems to be more centrist from what I've seen so far.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
Why does it seem so hard for any sort of centerist party to exist in Britain, even though there seems to be some evidence that most of the electorate are broadly centerist (or a little to the left/right of centre) in their views? The Tories may look as if they are coming to the middle for some years, but then (as now) they head off to the far right again, and Labour do the same at the other end of the scale, leaving no home for the centerist voter. In days of old the Liberals were a genuine centre party, but that seems to have ceased long since to be the case, so that now they seem to either a party that no-one can pin down to anything or a group rather to the left of Labour. What have we all got against being of the centre?
I think quite simply because of FPTP. For most people in England a vote for anyone other than the two big parties is wasted so slightly left of centre people will vote Labour because they'd rather not "let the Tories in" and vice versa.

The LibDems went to the left when Labour under Blair was occupying most of the centre ground. They then supported the Tories in 2010, though the numbers wouldn't have added up to a workable majority if they'd supported Labour, but they'd have been better to go for a looser agreement and to pick a few fights when the Tories tried to get something through that wasn't in the manifesto. That's still too recent in the memory for some left-leaning Remainers to have supported them in 2019, when they also managed to give Boris a way out from the fate he deserved. And moderate Tories had nowhere really to go in 2019, due to the worry of letting Corbyn in.
 

S&CLER

Member
Joined
11 Jan 2020
Messages
785
Location
southport
Why does it seem so hard for any sort of centerist party to exist in Britain, even though there seems to be some evidence that most of the electorate are broadly centerist (or a little to the left/right of centre) in their views? The Tories may look as if they are coming to the middle for some years, but then (as now) they head off to the far right again, and Labour do the same at the other end of the scale, leaving no home for the centerist voter. In days of old the Liberals were a genuine centre party, but that seems to have ceased long since to be the case, so that now they seem to either a party that no-one can pin down to anything or a group rather to the left of Labour. What have we all got against being of the centre?

There were some interesting figures in today's Times: median weekly earnings in Red Wall seats won by the Tories last year were £529.25; median earnings in existing Tory seats were £586; and in Labour seats £554; but the median weekly earnings in the few Lib Dem seats were way out of line with the other parties at £649.44. I'm not sure if these are household earnings (it isn't made clear), or what to read into that, unless perhaps that Lib Dem politics is perceived in most parts of the country as something for the well-off only, and that cultural identity is taking over from class as the (or at least a) main driver in politics in the UK.
 

takno

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
5,037
There were some interesting figures in today's Times: median weekly earnings in Red Wall seats won by the Tories last year were £529.25; median earnings in existing Tory seats were £586; and in Labour seats £554; but the median weekly earnings in the few Lib Dem seats were way out of line with the other parties at £649.44. I'm not sure if these are household earnings (it isn't made clear), or what to read into that, unless perhaps that Lib Dem politics is perceived in most parts of the country as something for the well-off only, and that cultural identity is taking over from class as the (or at least a) main driver in politics in the UK.
There aren't really enough Lib-Dem seats to run stats on in that way. There's a good chance that in some Lib-Dem seats the wealthiest half of the constituency voted for other parties but were outvoted by the poorer half - an effect which would average out over a couple of hundred seats but really won't over 11. Besides, plenty of poor people in the south-west, Wales and parts of the north voted Lib-Dem until Nick got in bed with the Tories, and might do again if they didn't prove so adept at picking poor leaders.

The last election was heavily driven by people voting against Corbyn and people voting against Brexit, neither of whom saw the Lib-Dems as anything other than a wasted vote. It's possible that an interest in the issues at hand and the capability of the various politicians is taking over from both class and cultural identity, and it's just a pity that the primary cause is desperate need to avoid the most terrible leader rather than to select a good one.
 

DB

Guest
Joined
18 Nov 2009
Messages
5,036
Besides, plenty of poor people in the south-west, Wales and parts of the north voted Lib-Dem until Nick got in bed with the Tories, and might do again if they didn't prove so adept at picking poor leaders.

Indeed. I guess the trouble the Lib Dems have now though is that they have so few MPs that they don't have many options for leader!
 

GRALISTAIR

Established Member
Joined
11 Apr 2012
Messages
7,806
Location
Dalton GA USA & Preston Lancs
The last election was heavily driven by people voting against Corbyn and people voting against Brexit, neither of whom saw the Lib-Dems as anything other than a wasted vote. It's possible that an interest in the issues at hand and the capability of the various politicians is taking over from both class and cultural identity, and it's just a pity that the primary cause is desperate need to avoid the most terrible leader rather than to select a good one.

Sadly , I think you are absolutely correct.
 

DB

Guest
Joined
18 Nov 2009
Messages
5,036
Sadly , I think you are absolutely correct.

The bit about Corbyn probably is, but not sure about Brexit - Corbyn made a point of sitting on the fence over that so yo couldn't say that a vote for him was a vote against Brexit.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,691
Location
Scotland
...but not sure about Brexit - Corbyn made a point of sitting on the fence over that so yo couldn't say that a vote for him was a vote against Brexit.
Which was one of the most annoying things about him as Labour leader - his lack of a position on what was at the time the biggest political issue facing the country just cemented the idea that he couldn't be trusted for a lot of people.
 

DB

Guest
Joined
18 Nov 2009
Messages
5,036
Which was one of the most annoying things about him as Labour leader - his lack of a position on what was at the time the biggest political issue facing the country just cemented the idea that he couldn't be trusted for a lot of people.

I agree, and I didn't vote Labour for that reason (I probably would have done if it might have made a difference as it was still preferable to the Tories, but as I now live in a constituency with a massive Tory majority I voted Green).
 

takno

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
5,037
The bit about Corbyn probably is, but not sure about Brexit - Corbyn made a point of sitting on the fence over that so yo couldn't say that a vote for him was a vote against Brexit.
I think it drove a lot of votes to Labour in both 2017 and 2019. In both cases the Lib Dems looked more like a wasted vote than anything else. In any event Labour polled fairly high on the night, and I didn't get much impression that it was driven by a positive vote for free broadband
 

JonasB

Member
Joined
27 Dec 2016
Messages
921
Location
Sweden
I appreciate that's true even in the UK, some of the Welsh and Scottish rural seats for instance, but the average disparity is less than with most proportional systems. Even STV would be preferable to pure Party List in such an instance in my view, but to me AMS is the best of both worlds and given it's used at the devolved level in parts of the UK already I think it would be the most likely PR system chosen and perhaps the most readily accepted if/when that day comes.

I still can't understand the importance of having a local MP, but that is problably a cultural thing. But if that is important AMS is probably a pretty good system.

Why does it seem so hard for any sort of centerist party to exist in Britain, even though there seems to be some evidence that most of the electorate are broadly centerist (or a little to the left/right of centre) in their views? The Tories may look as if they are coming to the middle for some years, but then (as now) they head off to the far right again, and Labour do the same at the other end of the scale, leaving no home for the centerist voter. In days of old the Liberals were a genuine centre party, but that seems to have ceased long since to be the case, so that now they seem to either a party that no-one can pin down to anything or a group rather to the left of Labour. What have we all got against being of the centre?

Because of First past the post. Duverger's law says that first past the post leads to a two party system since it will be very hard for smaller parties to get in to parliament unless they have a strong regional base, like the SNP. The 2010 UK election is a good illustration of the problem. The Tories got 47% of the seats with 36% of the vote, but the difference between Labour and the Libdems really illustrates the problem. Labour recieved 29% of the votes and that gave them 40% of the seats in parliament, the Libdems did slightly worse than Labour with only 23% of the vote but that only gave them 9% of the seats.
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
13,305
Location
Isle of Man
Why does it seem so hard for any sort of centerist party to exist in Britain, even though there seems to be some evidence that most of the electorate are broadly centerist

FPTP encourages votes for the least-worst option. It's better to vote against what you don't want rather than for what you do want.

An example in my old Tynemouth constituency. The front-runners were Labour and The Brexit Party Ltd. I'm a LibDem. I've always been a LibDem. I always* will be (*Starmer could tempt me if I move back to the UK). But do I vote LibDem with my conscience and risk The Brexit Party Ltd winning, or do I vote Labour to negate the threat of The Brexit Party Ltd even though I think the Tynemouth Labour MP is a rubbish constituency MP and a general all-round tit? In the end I went LibDem, I couldn't bear to vote for Campbell- and it is because of him as a person- but I was in the polling booth a good ten minutes thinking about it. The thought of The Brexit Party Ltd winning gave me the chills.

So if you're a centrist you'll vote for whichever extreme you dislike least in order to prevent success for whichever extreme you dislike most.
 

hexagon789

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Sep 2016
Messages
15,713
Location
Glasgow
I still can't understand the importance of having a local MP, but that is problably a cultural thing. But if that is important AMS is probably a pretty good system.

I would consider it an important tradition of British politics that would be worth retaining
 

Senex

Established Member
Joined
1 Apr 2014
Messages
2,752
Location
York
I would consider it an important tradition of British politics that would be worth retaining
I'm afraid I still don't understand what is so important about having a single local MP, with whose views a majoroity of the total electorate may have no sympathy at all. If that person were someone with firm local roots and connections, say a genuinely local employer or a local trade union officer, then I could see a point. But for a London lawyer or politicalspecial advisor parachuted in, with no connections and no real interest in the place, then what's the use of th local MP, especially when if half the people go to them on a political matter the response will just be polite (or less than polite) disagreement. And if they are just to be local ombudsmen, then they're massively over-paid and over-statused.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top