4 ms·

This is far from the only reason, but I think one reason is UK running a two-party system. The proponents (sitting parties) call it first-past-the-post, to mak

This is far from the only reason, but I think one reason is UK running a two-party system. The proponents (sitting parties) call it first-past-the-post, to make it sound like a fair system. But most people know that proportional voting systems are better. With a two party system there will always be debate, but it won't be as real as it is with proportional voting. The parties run no real risk of not getting elected. It also drives the two parties to each side of the 'spectrum', which isn't very constructive. Take a look at these lists[1][2], see any pattern in which countries are using which system? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation#List_of_countries_using_proportional_representation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation#Li... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting#List_of_current_FPTP_countries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting#Lis...

robhu 9y ago
In 2011 the UK had a referendum on whether to change from FPTP to The Alternative Vote[0]. The people voted No overwhelmingly (68% No, 32% Yes). As with the Brexit referendum, those that lost complained afterward that the public was mislead, weren't given appropriate choices in the election etc. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Alternative_Vote_referendum,_2011 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Alternative_Vot...
- abritinthebay 9y ago
  > As with the Brexit referendum, those that lost complained afterward that the public was mislead And they weren't wrong. The problem unfortunately is that the public, as a whole, just doesn't care. They'd rather a comfortable, self-affirming, lie than an uncomfortable, intellectually challenging, truth.
  - robhu 9y ago
    The fact of the matter is that both sides believed the other side was lying during the campaign (e.g. Osborne's punishment budget, Cameron saying he'd invoke article 50, and Project Fear in general).
    - abritinthebay 9y ago
      Maybe, but the Leave campaign provably lied (and was exposed as such even during the campaign. Result: no-one cared. It was never about truth, it was about emotion
- sandstrom 9y ago
  Yes, I know. But as with any referendum, how well had people actually understood the implications? Interesting map, hadn't seen it before. The only ares where Yes won was Cambridge, Oxford and a few parts of central London/Glasgow/Edinburgh.

robhu 9y ago

In 2011 the UK had a referendum on whether to change from FPTP to The Alternative Vote[0]. The people voted No overwhelmingly (68% No, 32% Yes). As with the Brexit referendum, those that lost complained afterward that the public was mislead, weren't given appropriate choices in the election etc. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Alternative_Vote_referendum,_2011 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Alternative_Vot...

abritinthebay 9y ago
> As with the Brexit referendum, those that lost complained afterward that the public was mislead And they weren't wrong. The problem unfortunately is that the public, as a whole, just doesn't care. They'd rather a comfortable, self-affirming, lie than an uncomfortable, intellectually challenging, truth.
- robhu 9y ago
  The fact of the matter is that both sides believed the other side was lying during the campaign (e.g. Osborne's punishment budget, Cameron saying he'd invoke article 50, and Project Fear in general).
  - abritinthebay 9y ago
    Maybe, but the Leave campaign provably lied (and was exposed as such even during the campaign. Result: no-one cared. It was never about truth, it was about emotion
sandstrom 9y ago
Yes, I know. But as with any referendum, how well had people actually understood the implications? Interesting map, hadn't seen it before. The only ares where Yes won was Cambridge, Oxford and a few parts of central London/Glasgow/Edinburgh.