Snap General Election called

[Sandydragon]

Here's the thing about FPTP. It gives disproportionate power to the biggest parties. But systems where seats are more strictly related to the votes tend to give disproportionate power to the smaller parties. That can lead to situations like Israel where leaders only interested in themselves rely on the most extreme party to stay in power and those extremists can get their agenda prioritised. I'm not sure which is worse. I think as long as we don't go too far down the US 2 party route then we're probably not too bad. If you're going to have a wholly proportionate chamber I would have it be the second one. Personally though I would make our second chamber even less proportionate by making it regionally proportionate (20 from each on NI, Scotland, Wales, N England S England) and with a few people ex officio (the leaders of each major religion, the president of the supreme court, the leaders of most of the royal colleges and royal societies maybe a couple of University leaders, the leader of the ONS, you get the gist...)

agreed though not sure about your proportions there (20 from each on NI, Scotland, Wales, N England S England).

Sounds bloody good to me.

[Sandydragon]

Regardless of the form of voting, the upper house urgently needs reform. Either it’s a house of genuine experts who can scrutinise and recommend, which some genuinely do and are very good at, and not a place for political thankyous. Or it’s got genuine power and should be federal, as Eugene says representing all parts of the UK.

If the former then it needs to be smaller and strictly for a time based period, say 8-12 years. If the latter then the commons also needs reform and should, in my view, become the English Parliament. I suspect the expert house would get more support but simply letting the current charade continue isn’t right.

[Banquo]

Here's the thing about FPTP. It gives disproportionate power to the biggest parties. But systems where seats are more strictly related to the votes tend to give disproportionate power to the smaller parties. That can lead to situations like Israel where leaders only interested in themselves rely on the most extreme party to stay in power and those extremists can get their agenda prioritised. I'm not sure which is worse. I think as long as we don't go too far down the US 2 party route then we're probably not too bad. If you're going to have a wholly proportionate chamber I would have it be the second one. Personally though I would make our second chamber even less proportionate by making it regionally proportionate (20 from each on NI, Scotland, Wales, N England S England) and with a few people ex officio (the leaders of each major religion, the president of the supreme court, the leaders of most of the royal colleges and royal societies maybe a couple of University leaders, the leader of the ONS, you get the gist...)

agreed though not sure about your proportions there (20 from each on NI, Scotland, Wales, N England S England).

Sounds bloody good to me.

unless you are serious....

[Puja]

Is it worse than have a minority at the extreme end of 1 party holding that power? (see ERG in Cameron's government or DUP in May's; or that 1 senator in the US who's name I can't remember, but was the most right-wing Democrat in a 50:49 split).

IMO PR typically seems to bring a more collaborative parliamentary system, rather than combative; obviously far from completely so, especially in immature PR systems and coalitions.
I fail to see a way in which cooperation is worse than combat.

Besides, such warnings come across (to me) as a bit of "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the achievable"
There is no perfect system, but whilst we have political parties, FPTP is (about?) the least representative form of representative democracy.





Earlier this year (or was it last year?) there was a suggestion here that I thought was great, an adaptation of the Kiwi system.
If I've got this right:

You have X seats for a region, of which half are constituency MPs that are elected with FPtP as per normal. The other half are then filled up from the best performing losers in such a way that total X is fully proportional (and not just flown in by the party's preference).
A party only gets into the PR portion if they ran candidates in every constituency within the region (so SNP do for Scotland, PC do for Wales, Count Binface doesn't for wherever he stands).
Sensible to add transferable vote in there as well, which would boost the representational value of the PR portion.

To take a fictional region in England, and let's call it... Central.
Central has 60 seats in Westminster, split into 30 constituencies.
Those constituencies get their seats filled by FPTP, winner takes all.

Which may end up as (figures taken from yesterday's Electoral Calculus porediction) Con 3, Lab 24, Lib 3, Reform 0, Green 0
But with a vote split of Con 23.3%, Lab 44.7%, Lib 9.2%, Reform 11.8%, Green 5.8%, Other 5.2% (this "Other" really doesn't help the maths)

The losing candidates for each party in Central, are arranged in order of vote share locally
The 12 best performing, losing Conservatives candidates, get a PR seat for 25.0% regional representation
The 4 best performing, losing Labour candidates, get a PR seat for 46.7% regional representation
The 3 best performing, losing Lib Dem candidates, get a PR seat for 10.0% regional representation
The 7 best performing, losing Reform candidates, get a PR seat for 11.7% regional representation
The 4 best performing, losing Green candidates, get a PR seat for 6.7% regional representation

Each constituency gets the most popular local MP
Each region get represented proportionately, with the MP based on the vote share of each candidate.


Of course, if you're worried that a more accurate representation of voters being a bad thing, then you can always go for 30 FPtP, and 30 straight PR - so 3+7, 24+14, 3+3, 0+4, 0+2 - still a LOT better than the current system that would give 6, 48, 6, 0, 0 under FPtP




Personally, of courses, I'm in favour of devolved power (about the same as Scotland's) to the 9 English regions anyway (and bringing Wales and NI up to the same power-level), with elections as above, and then PR representation from each regional parliament to Westminster for national issues. But that's very much me.

Puja

[Donny osmond]

Here's the thing about FPTP. It gives disproportionate power to the biggest parties. But systems where seats are more strictly related to the votes tend to give disproportionate power to the smaller parties. That can lead to situations like Israel where leaders only interested in themselves rely on the most extreme party to stay in power and those extremists can get their agenda prioritised. I'm not sure which is worse. I think as long as we don't go too far down the US 2 party route then we're probably not too bad. If you're going to have a wholly proportionate chamber I would have it be the second one. Personally though I would make our second chamber even less proportionate by making it regionally proportionate (20 from each on NI, Scotland, Wales, N England S England) and with a few people ex officio (the leaders of each major religion, the president of the supreme court, the leaders of most of the royal colleges and royal societies maybe a couple of University leaders, the leader of the ONS, you get the gist...)

I’m proud of you, Donny. You have come a long way. This was you in Oct 2022:
‘Personally, on voting systems, anything other than fptp for me, I see not a single redeeming feature in that voting system.‘

Only jesting with you. All the systems have drawbacks you just need to choose which you dislike the least

I did genuinely believe it at that point. I mean, I still think other voting systems are better than fptp, it's just I've come to realise they aren't actually all that good either. Picking a voting system is very much picking a least worst option.

[Donny osmond]

Have now read the rest of the thread and I'm glad we're all on board. Feels nice, a good moment in RR discourse.

[Sandydragon]

Have now read the rest of the thread and I'm glad we're all on board. Feels nice, a good moment in RR discourse.

To echo many others, there is no perfect solution, but the current system has a number of significant issues. It’s well worth a review, including the point of the HoL, particularly if politics can become more constructive and less Punch and Judy.

[Stom]

I actually like the system here in Hungary. It’s just the gerrymandering that kills it.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Is it worse than have a minority at the extreme end of 1 party holding that power? (see ERG in Cameron's government or DUP in May's; or that 1 senator in the US who's name I can't remember, but was the most right-wing Democrat in a 50:49 split).

IMO PR typically seems to bring a more collaborative parliamentary system, rather than combative; obviously far from completely so, especially in immature PR systems and coalitions.
I fail to see a way in which cooperation is worse than combat.

Besides, such warnings come across (to me) as a bit of "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the achievable"
There is no perfect system, but whilst we have political parties, FPTP is (about?) the least representative form of representative democracy.





Earlier this year (or was it last year?) there was a suggestion here that I thought was great, an adaptation of the Kiwi system.
If I've got this right:

You have X seats for a region, of which half are constituency MPs that are elected with FPtP as per normal. The other half are then filled up from the best performing losers in such a way that total X is fully proportional (and not just flown in by the party's preference).
A party only gets into the PR portion if they ran candidates in every constituency within the region (so SNP do for Scotland, PC do for Wales, Count Binface doesn't for wherever he stands).
Sensible to add transferable vote in there as well, which would boost the representational value of the PR portion.

To take a fictional region in England, and let's call it... Central.
Central has 60 seats in Westminster, split into 30 constituencies.
Those constituencies get their seats filled by FPTP, winner takes all.

Which may end up as (figures taken from yesterday's Electoral Calculus porediction) Con 3, Lab 24, Lib 3, Reform 0, Green 0
But with a vote split of Con 23.3%, Lab 44.7%, Lib 9.2%, Reform 11.8%, Green 5.8%, Other 5.2% (this "Other" really doesn't help the maths)

The losing candidates for each party in Central, are arranged in order of vote share locally
The 12 best performing, losing Conservatives candidates, get a PR seat for 25.0% regional representation
The 4 best performing, losing Labour candidates, get a PR seat for 46.7% regional representation
The 3 best performing, losing Lib Dem candidates, get a PR seat for 10.0% regional representation
The 7 best performing, losing Reform candidates, get a PR seat for 11.7% regional representation
The 4 best performing, losing Green candidates, get a PR seat for 6.7% regional representation

Each constituency gets the most popular local MP
Each region get represented proportionately, with the MP based on the vote share of each candidate.


Of course, if you're worried that a more accurate representation of voters being a bad thing, then you can always go for 30 FPtP, and 30 straight PR - so 3+7, 24+14, 3+3, 0+4, 0+2 - still a LOT better than the current system that would give 6, 48, 6, 0, 0 under FPtP




Personally, of courses, I'm in favour of devolved power (about the same as Scotland's) to the 9 English regions anyway (and bringing Wales and NI up to the same power-level), with elections as above, and then PR representation from each regional parliament to Westminster for national issues. But that's very much me.

Yep, that was me back in March (seems like longer ago . . . )

My preferred system (not in operation anywhere) would be the Kiwi system except that the 'top-up' MPs are chosen from the party's losing candidates in other seats, and selected in descending order of vote share in their constituencies. That way, you get a reasonable amount of legitimacy for all the MPs and you avoid unpalatable Mandelson types, or mates of the party leaders getting put at the top of the list.

[Puja]

I actually like the system here in Hungary. It’s just the gerrymandering that kills it.

What does Hungary do?

Puja

[Which Tyler]

Yep, that was me back in March (seems like longer ago . . . )

Gods, was it only 3 months ago?

Age is weird. That seems like about this time last year; but Kurt Cobain died about a decade ago (in reality, closer in time to the Beatle's debut album than today)

[Eugene Wrayburn]

agreed though not sure about your proportions there (20 from each on NI, Scotland, Wales, N England S England).

Sounds bloody good to me.

unless you are serious....

I am! The point is that it's just a revising chamber and Parliament shouldn't be doing anything that can't get genuine countryside support. To my mind restraint on that show is basically the only way of keeping the union. So as now finance bills would sail through but other stuff would need actual agreement

[Banquo]

Sounds bloody good to me.

unless you are serious....

I am! The point is that it's just a revising chamber and Parliament shouldn't be doing anything that can't get genuine countryside support. To my mind restraint on that show is basically the only way of keeping the union. So as now finance bills would sail through but other stuff would need actual agreement

I meant the proportions

[Eugene Wrayburn]

unless you are serious....

I am! The point is that it's just a revising chamber and Parliament shouldn't be doing anything that can't get genuine countryside support. To my mind restraint on that show is basically the only way of keeping the union. So as now finance bills would sail through but other stuff would need actual agreement

I meant the proportions

I know. Hence the talk of countrywide support (despite the typo) and the union. It's a great deal less disproportionate than the US Senate.

[Banquo]

I am! The point is that it's just a revising chamber and Parliament shouldn't be doing anything that can't get genuine countryside support. To my mind restraint on that show is basically the only way of keeping the union. So as now finance bills would sail through but other stuff would need actual agreement

I meant the proportions

It's a great deal less disproportionate than the US Senate.

not sure how that is relevent tbh, its hardly a paragon of governance. But I get how skewing it might mean acceptance, otherwise the south of england would have c 40% or so of reps, and England 70% or so.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Yep, that was me back in March (seems like longer ago . . . )

Gods, was it only 3 months ago?

Age is weird. That seems like about this time last year; but Kurt Cobain died about a decade ago (in reality, closer in time to the Beatle's debut album than today)

Yeah, on a related point I am convinced that music hasn't changed since the 90s (not that it's bad just that it's basically the same). There is a danger that (with age ) I am missing the nuance that distinguishes post-2000 styles but I refuse to believe it.

[Banquo]

Yep, that was me back in March (seems like longer ago . . . )

Gods, was it only 3 months ago?

Age is weird. That seems like about this time last year; but Kurt Cobain died about a decade ago (in reality, closer in time to the Beatle's debut album than today)

David Bowie's theory on those lines was that time passing perception is in proportion to your age; when you are 4, one year is 25% of your age, when you are 40, one year is only 2.5% (obvs)

[Stom]

I actually like the system here in Hungary. It’s just the gerrymandering that kills it.

What does Hungary do?

Puja

It's a mixed member majority system with a closed list.

So you elect a local MP through FPTP and you also elect from a party list. It's like the Italian system. Certain minority groups have representative parties (such as Roma) and are guaranteed X percentage of representation. So if they fall short, they're topped up by taking proportionally away from the other parties in the list vote.

There are two issues.

1) Transylvanians were en masse given the right to vote by Fidesz, and get to vote in the list election (not the MP vote), and have been consistently bribed to vote for the government. They are, however, starting to turn away. Finally.
2) The voting boundaries have been ruthlessly gerrymandered, much like in the US. There are two towns next to us, one is around 45-50% Fidesz, the other is around 80% not Fidesz. They are grouped together, along with a random selection of small towns and villages that are 80% Fidesz, meaning that 80% non Fidesz town always gets a Fidesz MP.

The main criticism of the system from within is that it promotes disunity among opposition parties, as they cannot have a joint list in the closed list part.

But this is just because the opposition are appallingly bad politicians. And, as I think I've already said, they know this. Or at least the good ones know it.

But there's a new man in town, and his name is Mr. Hungarian literally. Peter Magyar. He might just win. Though he's far from a socialist, it's not really possible to be worse than Fidesz, so he has most people's vote.

[Stom]

Farage is running That'll surely eat into the Tories a bit more.

Problem is...in that seat he could bloody win.

[Zhivago]

Farage is running That'll surely eat into the Tories a bit more.

Problem is...in that seat he could bloody win.

I'm not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand, it might accelerate the Tory implosion. But on the other, we should not take lightly the quasi-fascist movement gaining traction.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Farage is running That'll surely eat into the Tories a bit more.

Problem is...in that seat he could bloody win.

This should be fun.

(Although my head says it would be better if the cunt disappeared to the US for good).

[Son of Mathonwy]

Farage is running That'll surely eat into the Tories a bit more.

Problem is...in that seat he could bloody win.

I'm not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand, it might accelerate the Tory implosion. But on the other, we should not take lightly the quasi-fascist movement gaining traction.

Exactly.

[Sandydragon]

Farage is running That'll surely eat into the Tories a bit more.

Problem is...in that seat he could bloody win.

I'm not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand, it might accelerate the Tory implosion. But on the other, we should not take lightly the quasi-fascist movement gaining traction.

It will hurt Labour a
Bit, it will hurt the Tories a lot more. This is where I’m grateful for FPTP, because they will build up loads of steam and energy but probably not win that many seats.

This could get very very nasty for the Tories. I see Sunak got ahead of the announcement with a reminder that a vote for Darage means Starmer,
But that just sounded panicked. And Farage really wants to destroy the Tories.

[Puja]

Farage is running That'll surely eat into the Tories a bit more.

Problem is...in that seat he could bloody win.

I'm not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand, it might accelerate the Tory implosion. But on the other, we should not take lightly the quasi-fascist movement gaining traction.

Exactly.

He'll win in Clacton (citation - I used to live there and it's chock-full of racists) and that gives both him and his party legitimacy. Genuinely worrying.

Puja

[Sandydragon]

I'm not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand, it might accelerate the Tory implosion. But on the other, we should not take lightly the quasi-fascist movement gaining traction.

Exactly.

He'll win in Clacton (citation - I used to live there and it's chock-full of racists) and that gives both him and his party legitimacy. Genuinely worrying.

Puja

They have won 15% of the vote previously and had MPs (albeit defections) so hard to argue they didn’t already have any legitimacy. And to be clear I detest UKIP/Reform.

The only positive in all this is that they peel some support from the scum of the BNP, the ‘quiet’ racists who just want immigrants to go home but wouldn’t dream of assaulting them. Not sure that’s worth the damage that party has done to this country of late.

On another note, I wonder if Farages decision was influenced by a certain guilty verdict? No point going to the US to be Trumps mate if he’s not going to get elected. I suspect Farage has made a decision over what’s best for Farage and he can be too busy with the UK election to be that closely associated with Trump.