3 ms·

The lack of proportional representation means that the consent of Parliament is rather different from the consent of the people. Not since 1931 has a UK party

The lack of proportional representation means that the consent of Parliament is rather different from the consent of the people. Not since 1931 has a UK party received a majority of votes cast. A quirk of the voting system has usually given a parliamentary majority to one party. Voters didn't specifically vote for a minority government in 2017. In fact, a greater proportion of them voted for the Conservative party than in the previous election, at which it "won" a majority.

growse 7y ago
I'm a PR cheerleader as much as the next guy, but our FPTP system isn't exactly an obscure secret. You might not like the outcome that it gives you, but it's by definition what the voters voted for.
- lambertsimnel 7y ago
  I take a different view of whether the results of elections are "by definition what the voters voted for". FPTP tends to produce results at odds with popular support. It has produced majorities in Parliament for parties that received a mere plurality of the votes. It has produced at least one Parliament in which a party without even a plurality of votes received a parliamentary majority. FPTP can even deny a parliamentary majority to a party with a majority of votes. This is essentially what happened in the last pre-Apartheid election in South Africa, at which most voters voted for the anti-Apartheid coalition. I'd even go as far as to partly disagree with your judgement that FPTP isn't a secret. Clearly many do know that the House of Commons is elected by FPTP, but even most political correspondents seem unaware of its far-reaching consequences. Among ordinary voters, many are unaware of FPTP. I've met UK voters who don't accept the UK doesn't already have PR for general elections. (I've also met teachers who tell me their politics students believe we have PR until taught otherwise. I think it's a natural assumption that it necessarily takes more votes to win an election than to lose.)
  - vidarh 7y ago
    I'd have to agree with you that I think a lot of voters don't understand FPTP. I keep having arguments with UK voters that think that it takes a majority in a constituency to win a seat, for example. Many refuse to believe this isn't the case even when I give examples showing it takes just a plurality in each seat, because it just seems wrong to a lot of people, even when asking them how else you'd pick the winner in a single-seat constituency without any form of ranked voting. FPTP just seems to seem totally counter-intuitive to people when you make them actually work through the implications. As an immigrant, it's incredibly frustrating to come across "natives" that knows less about their own electoral system than I do.

growse 7y ago

I'm a PR cheerleader as much as the next guy, but our FPTP system isn't exactly an obscure secret. You might not like the outcome that it gives you, but it's by definition what the voters voted for.

lambertsimnel 7y ago
I take a different view of whether the results of elections are "by definition what the voters voted for". FPTP tends to produce results at odds with popular support. It has produced majorities in Parliament for parties that received a mere plurality of the votes. It has produced at least one Parliament in which a party without even a plurality of votes received a parliamentary majority. FPTP can even deny a parliamentary majority to a party with a majority of votes. This is essentially what happened in the last pre-Apartheid election in South Africa, at which most voters voted for the anti-Apartheid coalition. I'd even go as far as to partly disagree with your judgement that FPTP isn't a secret. Clearly many do know that the House of Commons is elected by FPTP, but even most political correspondents seem unaware of its far-reaching consequences. Among ordinary voters, many are unaware of FPTP. I've met UK voters who don't accept the UK doesn't already have PR for general elections. (I've also met teachers who tell me their politics students believe we have PR until taught otherwise. I think it's a natural assumption that it necessarily takes more votes to win an election than to lose.)
- vidarh 7y ago
  I'd have to agree with you that I think a lot of voters don't understand FPTP. I keep having arguments with UK voters that think that it takes a majority in a constituency to win a seat, for example. Many refuse to believe this isn't the case even when I give examples showing it takes just a plurality in each seat, because it just seems wrong to a lot of people, even when asking them how else you'd pick the winner in a single-seat constituency without any form of ranked voting. FPTP just seems to seem totally counter-intuitive to people when you make them actually work through the implications. As an immigrant, it's incredibly frustrating to come across "natives" that knows less about their own electoral system than I do.