First Past The Post our saviour?

MolteniArcore

MolteniArcore

Well-known member
In the EU it seems the far right are taking hold. As we are still using FPTP is that protecting us from this? It seems that centrist parties win elections in the UK, but if PR was brought in that might let these parties in.

Maybe that is a good thing as it would let the Greens in too but is it worth the gamble? We could see Reform-like parties, some even more RW getting a foothold in our democracy.
 
I would like PR so we could have another ruling party other than Labour or Conservitives everyone's vote would matter more also. If people though that voting green wasn't a wasted vote more people would vote for it.

However for your question PR does result in the two extremes so Ultra left and then ultra right gaining traction and the centre ground parties do worse.
 
The point of PR is you don’t get a massive majority with less than 50% of the vote, the govt therefore is representative of the way the majority have voted.

If that means we get far right parties in power then it’s what people want. We might not like it but it’s democracy
 
Ironops said:
The point of PR is you don’t get a massive majority with less than 50% of the vote, the govt therefore is representative of the way the majority have voted.

If that means we get far right parties in power then it’s what people want. We might not like it but it’s democracy
Click to expand...
The downside is that you tend to get coalition governments that collapse.
I can see a need for change but I'm not sure what the answer is. I'd like us to have some cross-party/independent organisations looking at long term strategy (25-30 years) for things like transport, energy, health, housing, etc so that there's a coherent policy independent of party political machinations and vagueries of 5 year parliamentary terms.
 
MolteniArcore said:
In the EU it seems the far right are taking hold. As we are still using FPTP is that protecting us from this? It seems that centrist parties win elections in the UK, but if PR was brought in that might let these parties in.

Maybe that is a good thing as it would let the Greens in too but is it worth the gamble? We could see Reform-like parties, some even more RW getting a foothold in our democracy.
Click to expand...
I don’t know where you’ve been for the last 5 years but we’ve moved pretty right over that period
 
I saw a suggestion online that rather than just a fixed five year cycle, 10% of the seats should change every year. As more of a 'live' representation of the voters feelings towards the ruling party.

Might keep the MP's on their toes a bit more.
 
MolteniArcore said:
In the EU it seems the far right are taking hold. As we are still using FPTP is that protecting us from this? It seems that centrist parties win elections in the UK, but if PR was brought in that might let these parties in.

Maybe that is a good thing as it would let the Greens in too but is it worth the gamble? We could see Reform-like parties, some even more RW getting a foothold in our democracy.
Click to expand...
Isn't that the point of a democracy?
You also seem to have a problem with "Reform-like" parties,yet seem to be OK with left wing fanatics like the Greens having a say in "our" democracy!
 
MolteniArcore said:
In the EU it seems the far right are taking hold. As we are still using FPTP is that protecting us from this? It seems that centrist parties win elections in the UK, but if PR was brought in that might let these parties in.

Maybe that is a good thing as it would let the Greens in too but is it worth the gamble? We could see Reform-like parties, some even more RW getting a foothold in our democracy.
Click to expand...
Exactly, been saying this for ages.

When you're ahead, FPTP is good, and PR makes no sense, as it gives the other side a voice, that they did not let you have when you were not ahead. But as we have the right in 2/3rds of the time, then long term not having it has hurt the left. Tide is changing now, the only relatively younger voters that remain on the right side are the extremists who are throwing their teddies out of the cot.

So, where the Tories might have had 3 votes before they keep one, lose one to extremists, and lose one to the centre. The votes the Tories do keep will die off as their core voter base is very old, and has old views.

10 years ago I would have said PR was a good idea, but having seen what the Tory vote is being replaced with (younger, less selfish and more diverse folk) I don't want it any more. All it would result in is some political gridlock on some issues. Although saying that, I think Labour left, Labour centre left and Labour centre, Greens, and Lib Dem could agree on a lot of things that would work out for where I sit.

It would have been a good thing to have at the time of the brexit vote though, as even if we had voted out, then we would have at least started with a deal a lot closer to what the public actually wanted, i.e not the hard brexit that only 18% of voters wanted. BINO would have kept a lot of the idiots happy.

Not having PR helps in some way against the right though as there are a hell of a lot of absolute extreme far right lunatics, so having them having say 100 seats and the left having a 100 seats, won't weight to the middle, it will weigh over to the lunatics as they have the press on their side, and the gullible people sympathise with that side. They're also a lot more vocal on older peoples social media etc.

PR might end up with a ~60/40 in favour of the left, for now, but it wouldn't have been that way 5,10 years ago. I don't want the 40% having loads of seats as once they get the press behind them things could start to move the wrong way again (temporarily).

PR in 10 years, when another decade of Tories have died off should be fine, will be more like 70/30 by then.

Not sure how PR would work with local seats though, how do MP's get selected per area etc?
 
Last edited:
Andy_W said:
Exactly, been saying this for ages.

When you're ahead FPTP makes no sense, as it gives the other side a voice, that they did not let you have when you were not ahead. But as we have the right in 2/3rds of the time, then long term not having it has hurt the left. Tide is changing now, the only relatively younger voters that remain on the right side are the extremists who are throwing their teddies out of the cot.

So, where the Tories might have had 3 votes before they keep one, lose one to extremists, and lose one to the centre. The votes the Tories do keep will die off as their core voter base is very old, and has old views.

10 years ago I would have said FPTP was a good idea, but having seen what the Tory vote is being replaced with (younger, less selfish and more diverse folk) I don't want it any more. All it would result in is some political gridlock on some issues. Although saying that, I think Labour left, Labour centre left and Labour centre, Greens, and Lib Dem could agree on a lot of things that would work out for where I sit.

It would have been a good thing to have at the time of the brexit vote though, as even if we had voted out, then we would have at least started with a deal a lot closer to what the public actually wanted, i.e not the hard brexit that only 18% of voters wanted. BINO would have kept a lot of the idiots happy.

Not having FPTP helps in some way against the right though as there are a hell of a lot of absolute extreme far right lunatics, so having them having say 100 seats and the left having a 100 seats, won't weight to the middle, it will weigh over to the lunatics as they have the press on their side, and the gullible people sympathise with that side. They're also a lot more vocal on older peoples social media etc.

FPTP might end up with a ~60/40 in favour of the left, for now, but it wouldn't have been that way 5,10 years ago. I don't want the 40% having loads of seats as once they get the press behind them things could start to move the wrong way again (temporarily).

FPTP in 10 years, when another decade of Tories have died off should be fine, will be more like 70/30 by then.

Not sure how FPTP would work with local seats though, how do MP's get selected per area etc?
Click to expand...
Are you getting FPTP mixed up with PR?
 
Andy_W said:
Not sure how PR would work with local seats though, how do MP's get selected per area etc?
Click to expand...
Think you've identified the main problem, in that we don't recognise that it would need to be a total transformation of how we run the country.

There would be so much reorganisation of how the country works, or doesn't. We are half-arsed as a country.

You would probably need to have parliamentarians representing an area but only as figureheads with devolved officers and councils looking after local issues from constituents.

I just don't think as a nation we have the bandwidth to deal with that. We've muddled along for so long.
 
The fragile nature of coalitions overseas often means more meaningful negotiation and bargaining between the parties which can temper the more extreme participants.

I've always been in favour (and still am) but would want some other changes in line with PR, mainly educational reform and media regulation.
 
MolteniArcore said:
In the EU it seems the far right are taking hold. As we are still using FPTP is that protecting us from this? It seems that centrist parties win elections in the UK, but if PR was brought in that might let these parties in.

Maybe that is a good thing as it would let the Greens in too but is it worth the gamble? We could see Reform-like parties, some even more RW getting a foothold in our democracy.
Click to expand...
FPTP does far more damage than worrying about the rise of the far right. The far right can be the biggest party in PR but if everyone else opposes them then they can't get anything through. With FPTP a party can get a massive majority without even getting a majority of the votes. At the last election the Tories with 43.6% of the vote had 365 of the 360 seats and Labour with 32% only had 202 seats. That allowed the Tories to have total control. The other issue with FPTP is that you can end up with two parties that are very similar to each other like Tories and Labour sometimes are but a better example is the US where the Democrats vs Republicans is basically Tories vs Reform and a huge portion of the country has no representation ever.

Tories (and Labour) don't want to lose the FPTP system because it keeps them as the important parties indefinitely. Neither really care about fair representation. The majority of the country have to vote for one of them, usually to keep the one they like the least out rather than to get the one they want in. It's a dreadful system and being scared of the far right, who would have more representation but still no chance of control, isn't a good enough reason to stick with FPTP. Also, the far right rise when voters are neglected and having a two party system where the "battle-ground" is the floating voters between the two big parties means anyone not falling within that narrow band of voters is largely neglected.

I'm very politically engaged and I've never voted in an election where my vote counts for anything. I'd like my vote to actually mean something and it would be interesting to see how people would vote if votes did mean something.
 
RedAsABeetroot said:
The downside is that you tend to get coalition governments that collapse.
I can see a need for change but I'm not sure what the answer is. I'd like us to have some cross-party/independent organisations looking at long term strategy (25-30 years) for things like transport, energy, health, housing, etc so that there's a coherent policy independent of party political machinations and vagueries of 5 year parliamentary terms.
Click to expand...
Some collapse yes, not all.

The longer term benefit is new parties emerge that reflect a broader spectrum of opinion. Plus people who currently would like to vote for a smaller party but feel its a wasted vote can be free to do so and see some representation of their wishes.
 
Our current system seems to give us 10-15 years of one lot undoing the previous lot's work or lack of, then start again and we get nowhere. PR isn't without its issues but it's more reflective of the actual vote and should in theory promote collaboration and compromise.
 
I'm not sure we can say anything about our system stopping the collapse. We have had 5 Prime Ministers in the last decade.

Okay, probably 4 and a bit.
 
I'm still to be convinced that a change to 'First Past the Post' would be of any benefit overall to the people on these islands.

You end up doing deals via a fudge or a threat or a large cheque (see tories/DUP).


There will be calls for Single Transferable Voting, Next !!


1st past the post - huge labour majority's time after time and get this country working for its subjects, citizens and international peace (thats my democracy) - i would change some things - Votes for 17 year olds, voting over a 72 hour period, electronic voting, a reminder that your employer must allow you time to vote in a G/E - and finally with the provision of a 'non of the above' box - compulsory voting, failure to do so will lead to a cut in your personal tax allowance - but thats just my long term thoughts to get a better government for its people - .

I'll be very surprised if we get anything over a 70% turn out at this 2024 election - yet people natter and yak about 'democracy' - it usually comes with calls for the abolition of the Human Rights Act (a democratic right) & don't bother to understand the reason why voting is a unique freedom, that folk gave their lives to get - when people talk about 'British Values' the right to partake in a national political vote is one of them, and we should delight in that, do your duty and Vote.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top