3 ms·

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting Parties can and do win despite most people vot

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting Parties can and do win despite most people voting against them if those against them don't vote for the same party. Other voting systems don't have this problem, but allow voters to be represented in the proportions in which they vote.

kmlx 4y ago
> allow voters to be represented in the proportions in which they vote. lived most of my life in such a system. it basically disenfranchised people from voting as whatever party they voted for never got enough votes and had to go into an alliance with other parties thus dropping their election pledges and thus removing any sort of democratic mandate. result: fewer and fewer people now go out to vote: https://www.statista.com/statistics/300427/eu-parlament-turnout-for-the-european-elections/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/300427/eu-parlament-turn...
- vidarh 4y ago
  Under FPTP a large proportion of voters lose effective representation, while in a proportional system you are able to vote for parties who will negotiate the way you want them to. I grew up on Norway, where parties always would go into elections with promises about what their negotiation goals for a coalition would be, because people understood that enfranchising as many as possible means negotiated compromises, not letting on faction push through whatever they want. Democracies are best judged by how well they ensure minorities interests are allowed to influence policy.
  - kmlx 4y ago
    > negotiated compromises exactly this is why voters simply don't turn up to vote any more. by "negotiating" those parties break their election pledges to their voters. voters thus become disenfranchised. we can see the end result today: very few people vote. > Democracies are best judged by how well they ensure minorities interests are allowed to influence policy. there are many ways to judge democracies. that's just one of the myriad of indicators.

kmlx 4y ago

> allow voters to be represented in the proportions in which they vote. lived most of my life in such a system. it basically disenfranchised people from voting as whatever party they voted for never got enough votes and had to go into an alliance with other parties thus dropping their election pledges and thus removing any sort of democratic mandate. result: fewer and fewer people now go out to vote: https://www.statista.com/statistics/300427/eu-parlament-turnout-for-the-european-elections/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/300427/eu-parlament-turn...

vidarh 4y ago
Under FPTP a large proportion of voters lose effective representation, while in a proportional system you are able to vote for parties who will negotiate the way you want them to. I grew up on Norway, where parties always would go into elections with promises about what their negotiation goals for a coalition would be, because people understood that enfranchising as many as possible means negotiated compromises, not letting on faction push through whatever they want. Democracies are best judged by how well they ensure minorities interests are allowed to influence policy.
- kmlx 4y ago
  > negotiated compromises exactly this is why voters simply don't turn up to vote any more. by "negotiating" those parties break their election pledges to their voters. voters thus become disenfranchised. we can see the end result today: very few people vote. > Democracies are best judged by how well they ensure minorities interests are allowed to influence policy. there are many ways to judge democracies. that's just one of the myriad of indicators.