4 ms·

it is better than FPTP. We use FPTP in the UK because it directly correlates an MP with a constituency. Even if the candidate you didn't prefer wins, they are

by gaius 8y ago

it is better than FPTP. We use FPTP in the UK because it directly correlates an MP with a constituency. Even if the candidate you didn't prefer wins, they are still your MP and have a duty to represent you. We had a referendum on PR a few years ago (which was rejected) and its proponents kept banging on about it, then went very very quiet when UKIP got 4 million votes (more than the SNP and the Greens combined).

wffurr 8y ago
You're conflating voting systems with geographic representation.
ergothus 8y ago
FPTP is not the only system to do that - if the vote is to decide who represents _you_, any system can do that. If the vote is instead to give the party a certain amount of power, it won't do as you want regardless of the voting system.
- gaius 8y ago
  The people vote for their representatives directly, and the party with the most has the opportunity but not the obligation to form the government. The alternative, PR, breaks the link between constituency and representative. That's why very few wanted it - generally those who thought it would favour their party (Lib Dems) who are unable to muster much support at the local level.
  - twblalock 8y ago
    I assume that PR means proportional representation. Instant runoff voting does not necessitate proportional representation. You can have an instant-runoff vote to elect a single MP for your constituency. All you do is rank the candidates in order of preference rather than picking just one of them. There will be one winner, and that's your MP.
flukus 8y ago
> We had a referendum on PR a few years ago (which was rejected) and its proponents kept banging on about it You had a vote on IRV, not for proportional representation. The Australian lower house is based on the same Westminster system but we use IRV.

4 ms·

it is better than FPTP. We use FPTP in the UK because it directly correlates an MP with a constituency. Even if the candidate you didn't prefer wins, they are

by gaius 8y ago

wffurr 8y ago
You're conflating voting systems with geographic representation.
ergothus 8y ago
FPTP is not the only system to do that - if the vote is to decide who represents _you_, any system can do that. If the vote is instead to give the party a certain amount of power, it won't do as you want regardless of the voting system.
- gaius 8y ago
  The people vote for their representatives directly, and the party with the most has the opportunity but not the obligation to form the government. The alternative, PR, breaks the link between constituency and representative. That's why very few wanted it - generally those who thought it would favour their party (Lib Dems) who are unable to muster much support at the local level.
  - twblalock 8y ago
    I assume that PR means proportional representation. Instant runoff voting does not necessitate proportional representation. You can have an instant-runoff vote to elect a single MP for your constituency. All you do is rank the candidates in order of preference rather than picking just one of them. There will be one winner, and that's your MP.
flukus 8y ago
> We had a referendum on PR a few years ago (which was rejected) and its proponents kept banging on about it You had a vote on IRV, not for proportional representation. The Australian lower house is based on the same Westminster system but we use IRV.