5 ms·

But I don't think that's how it works? I think parliament works proportionally? See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_the_United_Kingdom https:

by mjfl 4y ago

But I don't think that's how it works? I think parliament works proportionally? See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_the_United_Kingd... It is not the case that the conservative party got all the seats.

tragomaskhalos 4y ago
Imagine there were 100 constituencies, and in every one party A secured 51% of the vote and party B got 49%. Under our current system, party A would have all 100 seats, and party B would have no representation at all; whereas under PR, A and B would (simpisticly speaking)split seats 51-49.
- scatters 4y ago
  Worse, imagine that in 51 constituencies A gets 51% of the vote, and in 49 it gets 0% of the vote. This gives A a majority in parliament even though voters as a whole prefer B nearly 3-to-1.
  - Tycho 4y ago
    Why do people criticise FPTP using these hypothetical scenarios that do not resemble the actual outcomes.
    - scatters 4y ago
      Because they do resemble the actual outcomes. The 2 major parties in the UK regularly get majorities in Parliament on far less than 50% of the vote. In the USA gerrymandering has been brought to a fine art. How can this not contribute to discontent, when the majority of people get a government they didn't vote for?
      - Tycho 4y ago
        It’s not like they’d be content with a deadlocked parliament where the ‘government’ they voted for can’t enact any policies. It’s good that there’s two dominant parties, both fairly central, who continually moderate their policies to keep high levels of support, and after an election, one of them gets to actually govern.
      - wpietri 4y ago
        Exactly. A good example in the US is Wisconsin, where FPTP has been exploited heavily. See the top graph here: https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/the-most-serious-challenge-to-gerrymandering-in-modern-times-reaches-the-supreme-court/ https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/the-most-serious-c...
phatfish 4y ago
First past the post means that everyone who didn't vote for the "winner" is ignored. No representation in their democracy. As the other comment said, a party can in theory get 100% of the seats/power with 51% of the vote. FPTP was more relevant when local politics mattered and local MPs actually made a difference to lives in their local area. Post-war the only decision making that matters is at the national level which FPTP cannot represent fairly.

by mjfl 4y ago

tragomaskhalos 4y ago

Imagine there were 100 constituencies, and in every one party A secured 51% of the vote and party B got 49%. Under our current system, party A would have all 100 seats, and party B would have no representation at all; whereas under PR, A and B would (simpisticly speaking)split seats 51-49.

scatters 4y ago
Worse, imagine that in 51 constituencies A gets 51% of the vote, and in 49 it gets 0% of the vote. This gives A a majority in parliament even though voters as a whole prefer B nearly 3-to-1.
- Tycho 4y ago
  Why do people criticise FPTP using these hypothetical scenarios that do not resemble the actual outcomes.
  - scatters 4y ago
    Because they do resemble the actual outcomes. The 2 major parties in the UK regularly get majorities in Parliament on far less than 50% of the vote. In the USA gerrymandering has been brought to a fine art. How can this not contribute to discontent, when the majority of people get a government they didn't vote for?
    - Tycho 4y ago
      It’s not like they’d be content with a deadlocked parliament where the ‘government’ they voted for can’t enact any policies. It’s good that there’s two dominant parties, both fairly central, who continually moderate their policies to keep high levels of support, and after an election, one of them gets to actually govern.
    - wpietri 4y ago
      Exactly. A good example in the US is Wisconsin, where FPTP has been exploited heavily. See the top graph here: https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/the-most-serious-challenge-to-gerrymandering-in-modern-times-reaches-the-supreme-court/ https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/the-most-serious-c...

phatfish 4y ago

First past the post means that everyone who didn't vote for the "winner" is ignored. No representation in their democracy. As the other comment said, a party can in theory get 100% of the seats/power with 51% of the vote. FPTP was more relevant when local politics mattered and local MPs actually made a difference to lives in their local area. Post-war the only decision making that matters is at the national level which FPTP cannot represent fairly.