3 ms·

how is it not popular support? or your point is that plurality is not enough? or that in a different voting system (alternate voting, ranked choice, etc..) the

by pas 2y ago

how is it not popular support? or your point is that plurality is not enough? or that in a different voting system (alternate voting, ranked choice, etc..) the winner would be completely different?

HPsquared 2y ago
Conservatives + Reform got more votes than Labour. More people voted against Labour than for them. In any other system they wouldn't have won, and at the very least wouldn't have a majority. The other thing to consider is that the electorate basically moved to the right in 2024 (Tory voters moved to Reform), but parliament shifted hard to the left.
- youngtaff 2y ago
  Not sure what your point is bit Labour, LibDems, Greens, SNP, Plaid combined got way more votes than Tories + Reform
  - HPsquared 2y ago
    Now that's a good point. They would need to actually debate things if parliament had this composition.
- vogon_laureate 2y ago
  The Online Safety Act came into being under a Conservative government.
- monooso 2y ago
  > In any other system they wouldn't have won… I can think of at least one other system where they would.
- pjc50 2y ago
  The same is true of many different pairs of parties! It's been a long time since any winner had over 50% of the popular vote. 2024: 33% 2019: 43.6% 2017: 42.3% (Lab: 40%!) 2015: 36.9% 2010: 36.1% 2005: 35.2% 2001: 40.7% 1997: 43.2% 1992: 41.9% The last election where the winning party got over 50% of the popular vote was .. 1931.
  - HPsquared 2y ago
    Yes it's been undemocratic for a long time. The 2024 one was just particularly egregious.
    - foldr 2y ago
      If you have more than two parties then the winning party may have less than 50% of the votes. That's just how the math works out. Somewhat ironically, given your arguments, UK voters decisively rejected a plan to change the voting system to a more proportional one in a 2011 referendum: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_United_Kingdom_Alternative_Vote_referendum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_United_Kingdom_Alternativ...
      - pjc50 2y ago
        Yes, but: the winning party having less than 50% of the votes still feels incredibly undemocratic, as you get a situation where a majority of the voters picked a different choice. Proportional systems give an outcome where a majority of voters voted for at least one of the parties in the winning coalition. Coalitions become explicit rather than internal to parties. The internationalist/isolationist split in the Conservative party that they were desperately trying to put off would have happened much earlier. The referendum failed because only the LDs really supported it. I note that all sorts of devolved assemblies, councils, and (former) Euro elections used different systems.
        foldr 2y ago
        I would support a move to a more proportional system, but I think it's an exaggeration to describe the present system as 'incredibly undemocratic' (especially given that a clear majority of the voting population chose to keep this system in a democratic referendum not very long ago). There's plenty to criticise about the UK at present, but HN sometimes goes off the rails on this topic. I suspect that a post describing the USA as 'incredibly undemocratic' would get shorter shrift – even though the electoral college is arguably an order of magnitude more bonkers than the UK system. Edit: I'd also add that the UK is astonishingly democratic in some respects. It is remarkable that Brexit was implemented merely because a majority voted for it. There are few countries where such important decisions of national policy would be put to a popular referendum in this way and then implemented faithfully. (I was very firmly opposed to Brexit, FWIW.)
- pas 2y ago
  Okay, but what kind of voting system can capture this well (and what does it mean)? We don't know how people would have voted in this hypothetical. (Likely there would be a lot more parties, which generally is good.) Also C+R could have formed a coalition. (Or merge into a new party ... or - I haven't looked up how R came to be, but I assume it's a spin-off of/from C - R could have merged back into C, right?)
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - pjc50 2y ago
    The Scottish and Welsh assemblies use AMS. The NI assembly uses STV. You can see how this produces completely different results from the Westminster elections held in those areas. Reform are, like UKIP and the Referendum party, Trumpist parties organized around a popular figure and external funding (Richard Tice). They're not really spin offs although a few MPs may cross over.
  - throw646577 2y ago
    Reform is a spinoff, yes, in the same way that UKIP is a spinoff: it's a party consisting of people who didn't/couldn't/wouldn't get selected as conservative MPs, plus on the odd occasion one or two who left (Lee Anderson, who is terrible, awful, self-serving and alarming, and before him for UKIP Douglas Carswell, who was largely better characterised as a nice enough bloke who was completely wrong)
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

by pas 2y ago

how is it not popular support? or your point is that plurality is not enough? or that in a different voting system (alternate voting, ranked choice, etc..) the winner would be completely different?

HPsquared 2y ago

Conservatives + Reform got more votes than Labour. More people voted against Labour than for them. In any other system they wouldn't have won, and at the very least wouldn't have a majority. The other thing to consider is that the electorate basically moved to the right in 2024 (Tory voters moved to Reform), but parliament shifted hard to the left.

youngtaff 2y ago
Not sure what your point is bit Labour, LibDems, Greens, SNP, Plaid combined got way more votes than Tories + Reform
- HPsquared 2y ago
  Now that's a good point. They would need to actually debate things if parliament had this composition.
vogon_laureate 2y ago
The Online Safety Act came into being under a Conservative government.
monooso 2y ago
> In any other system they wouldn't have won… I can think of at least one other system where they would.
pjc50 2y ago
The same is true of many different pairs of parties! It's been a long time since any winner had over 50% of the popular vote. 2024: 33% 2019: 43.6% 2017: 42.3% (Lab: 40%!) 2015: 36.9% 2010: 36.1% 2005: 35.2% 2001: 40.7% 1997: 43.2% 1992: 41.9% The last election where the winning party got over 50% of the popular vote was .. 1931.
- HPsquared 2y ago
  Yes it's been undemocratic for a long time. The 2024 one was just particularly egregious.
  - foldr 2y ago
    If you have more than two parties then the winning party may have less than 50% of the votes. That's just how the math works out. Somewhat ironically, given your arguments, UK voters decisively rejected a plan to change the voting system to a more proportional one in a 2011 referendum: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_United_Kingdom_Alternative_Vote_referendum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_United_Kingdom_Alternativ...
    - pjc50 2y ago
      Yes, but: the winning party having less than 50% of the votes still feels incredibly undemocratic, as you get a situation where a majority of the voters picked a different choice. Proportional systems give an outcome where a majority of voters voted for at least one of the parties in the winning coalition. Coalitions become explicit rather than internal to parties. The internationalist/isolationist split in the Conservative party that they were desperately trying to put off would have happened much earlier. The referendum failed because only the LDs really supported it. I note that all sorts of devolved assemblies, councils, and (former) Euro elections used different systems.
      - foldr 2y ago
        I would support a move to a more proportional system, but I think it's an exaggeration to describe the present system as 'incredibly undemocratic' (especially given that a clear majority of the voting population chose to keep this system in a democratic referendum not very long ago). There's plenty to criticise about the UK at present, but HN sometimes goes off the rails on this topic. I suspect that a post describing the USA as 'incredibly undemocratic' would get shorter shrift – even though the electoral college is arguably an order of magnitude more bonkers than the UK system. Edit: I'd also add that the UK is astonishingly democratic in some respects. It is remarkable that Brexit was implemented merely because a majority voted for it. There are few countries where such important decisions of national policy would be put to a popular referendum in this way and then implemented faithfully. (I was very firmly opposed to Brexit, FWIW.)
pas 2y ago
Okay, but what kind of voting system can capture this well (and what does it mean)? We don't know how people would have voted in this hypothetical. (Likely there would be a lot more parties, which generally is good.) Also C+R could have formed a coalition. (Or merge into a new party ... or - I haven't looked up how R came to be, but I assume it's a spin-off of/from C - R could have merged back into C, right?)
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- pjc50 2y ago
  The Scottish and Welsh assemblies use AMS. The NI assembly uses STV. You can see how this produces completely different results from the Westminster elections held in those areas. Reform are, like UKIP and the Referendum party, Trumpist parties organized around a popular figure and external funding (Richard Tice). They're not really spin offs although a few MPs may cross over.
- throw646577 2y ago
  Reform is a spinoff, yes, in the same way that UKIP is a spinoff: it's a party consisting of people who didn't/couldn't/wouldn't get selected as conservative MPs, plus on the odd occasion one or two who left (Lee Anderson, who is terrible, awful, self-serving and alarming, and before him for UKIP Douglas Carswell, who was largely better characterised as a nice enough bloke who was completely wrong)
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]