Labour wouldn’t have gotten in power without FPTP.
Reform will whinge about FPTP until it gets them into office too.
MoffTanner on
I mean it’s already far too late as reforming the electral system would need to have been on the labour manifesto to be justified.
And I’m not sure having party lists to protect senior members from ever having to do local work or face direct removal form their seat will really do anything to address the negative views of politicians.
Mean-Dinner-8780 on
It’s not entirely wrong. But choosing this moment to change the voting system looks a lot like, „We don’t think we can beat the greens or reform within the current system, so we’re going to try to shut them out.“
Salty-Bid1597 on
lol, Labour suddenly develops a passion for electoral reform when FPTP becomes a threat to them.
PR will never happen for parliamentary elections. It’s way too complicated and invariably results in political stasis.
Which is good because while in theory it might be „fairer“ in some respects in practice it just results in a government that no one voted for and no one wants. Backroom deals and horse trading become de rigeur and fringe extremists get outsized leverage and power. If anything it moves democracy even further away from the voters as everything has to be resolved by negotiation between parties.
A much better real world system is ranked preference voting a la Australia. At the national level it still produces governments with majorities and popular mandates but at the local level it allows voter choice and dispenses with the need for tactical voting, penalising the least popular parties.
It is also a relatively trivial change to our existing system which is intuitive and needs little explanation.
At the same time you could introduce a little bit of PR by maybe assigning the Lords based on the percentage votes instead of the parliamentary results.
Leave A Reply
Du musst angemeldet sein, um einen Kommentar abzugeben.
5 Kommentare
‘….by banning elections’
Nah not really but can’t say I’d be surprised
Labour wouldn’t have gotten in power without FPTP.
Reform will whinge about FPTP until it gets them into office too.
I mean it’s already far too late as reforming the electral system would need to have been on the labour manifesto to be justified.
And I’m not sure having party lists to protect senior members from ever having to do local work or face direct removal form their seat will really do anything to address the negative views of politicians.
It’s not entirely wrong. But choosing this moment to change the voting system looks a lot like, „We don’t think we can beat the greens or reform within the current system, so we’re going to try to shut them out.“
lol, Labour suddenly develops a passion for electoral reform when FPTP becomes a threat to them.
PR will never happen for parliamentary elections. It’s way too complicated and invariably results in political stasis.
Which is good because while in theory it might be „fairer“ in some respects in practice it just results in a government that no one voted for and no one wants. Backroom deals and horse trading become de rigeur and fringe extremists get outsized leverage and power. If anything it moves democracy even further away from the voters as everything has to be resolved by negotiation between parties.
A much better real world system is ranked preference voting a la Australia. At the national level it still produces governments with majorities and popular mandates but at the local level it allows voter choice and dispenses with the need for tactical voting, penalising the least popular parties.
It is also a relatively trivial change to our existing system which is intuitive and needs little explanation.
At the same time you could introduce a little bit of PR by maybe assigning the Lords based on the percentage votes instead of the parliamentary results.