The Theresa May General Election thread (edited)

Boromedic

All the more reason to change our ridiculously outdated political system to proportional representation. Even though that would have meant a majority for the party I didn't like.

I'd prefer a complete radical overhaul where they made it a non profitable occupation but even then it would still be corrupt. Politicians have zero real power any more anyway, the banks control most of it.

ICBM

This illustrates another of the major problems with FPTP as an election system - and also why it's possible for a party to win more votes, but fewer seats… which has happened more than once.

Boromedic said:

All the more reason to change our ridiculously outdated political system to proportional representation. Even though that would have meant a majority for the party I didn't like.

A proper PR system would have still produced a Tory minority government or a coalition - 42.4% Tory (276 seats), 40% Labour (260 seats). In fact, it would still be impossible for any two-party coalition (other than Tory-Labour) to have a majority, since the Lib Dems only got 7.4% (48 seats), which would leave a Tory-LD government two seats short. Either Labour would need the Lib Dems, the SNP and a grand coalition of minor parties - or the Tories, Lib Dems and one of the small parties.

But this is the way most European governments work, so I don't see why it seems to be seen as such a problem in the UK.

fields5069

Sporky said:

fields5069 said:

Fretwired said:

May lost be 401 votes across a series of seats. That's all.

That, there, is some of that "creative statistics" stuff. What does it mean? 

I assume that 401 is the minimum number of votes required (in the right constituencies) to have changed the result to a Conservative majority.

It would be interesting(ish) to know the number required for a Labour majority for comparison...

Ah, I see now, thanks.

snakemanStoo

ICBM said:

But this is the way most European governments work, so I don't see why it seems to be seen as such a problem in the UK.

As far as I can tell it's because 'change = bad' in political mindsets.

guitarfishbay

Its FPTP.  Technically if Labour won by 1 vote in 326 constituencies and got 0 votes in all other seats they'd still end up with a parliamentary majority, despite a likely much lower national percentage of votes.

I really feel it is time to start properly discussing PR. There's no reason we can't have two elected houses, one by PR to govern and guide on national issues, and the other by FPTP for local domestic issues to be represented on a national level.

Our current system favours elective dictatorships (the gold standard being a large majority mandate)... it's no good the country being pulled in opposite directions every couple of years (from a purely ideological standpoint and IMO of course)... continual coalitions could be a good thing for stability if we view stability long term rather than one party getting to pass all its laws for 5 years then the next party spending the next 5 reversing them on party ideological grounds

Fretwired

Sporky said:

Blimey - so over 50,000.

Interesting too that Labour need over 6,000 more votes to win each of their seats - that suggests some cunning work by the Conservatives in drawing up constituency boundaries. No idea if that is the case, but it suggests it.

Boundaries are still where they were when Blair was PM. The Tories didn't get any changes through.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/18/june-2017-election-will-fought-without-boundary-changes-amid/

JezWynd

snakemanStoo said:

ICBM said:

But this is the way most European governments work, so I don't see why it seems to be seen as such a problem in the UK.

As far as I can tell it's because 'change = bad' in political mindsets.

Think it's more that any party in power is loathe to change the system that got them there. It's only the losers that call for a new method.

Proportional representation seems like a no brainer in a country consisting of ever more minority/specialist interests but until the party in power puts its mind to it, it's not going to happen. (The current 2 party result refutes that argument but I'm going with it anyway!).

Sporky

ICBM said:

A proper PR system would have still produced a Tory minority government or a coalition

Assuming everyone still voted the same way - which isn't at all certain, if they understood an alternative system and tactical voting diminished. Which it might.

Fretwired said:

Boundaries are still where they were when Blair was PM. The Tories didn't get any changes through.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/18/june-2017-election-will-fought-without-boundary-changes-amid/

Interesting - ta.

guitarfishbay

Sporky said:

ICBM said:

A proper PR system would have still produced a Tory minority government or a coalition

Assuming everyone still voted the same way - which isn't at all certain, if they understood an alternative system and tactical voting diminished. Which it might.

Surely this outcome is preferable though - if people vote for what they actually want. 

ChuckManual

How about a hybrid FPTP / STV+PR system?

Double (or treble) the size of constituencies, use a Transferable Vote system to get each one down to the final two (or three) candidates, then have their representatives voting power at parliament determined by the vote share they received back home.

It's complicated, I know (although, not unduly so), but you'd end-up with a more reflective representation of the wider electorate's wishes - and you'd also have a greater personal opportunity of having at least one MP in your area who might be more sympathetic to your particular issues.

...and, as someone who's tried to get a straight answer out of their local MP - but couldn't because they were too busy toeing the party line, I'd be a lot happier with that!

stickyfiddle

The German system seems ideal. Local votes for local MPs, plus a national vote at the same time for the party. All winning local MPs get a seat, then extra seats are added to make each party's ratio match the national vote. Not sure if they have another separate vote the chancellor or if it's just whoever has more seats, but it's quite straightforward and removes any potential for tactical voting because you can vote for a good local MP even if they don't work for the party you want running the country.

I can't help feeling this mess is the only real opportunity for all parties to push for a new system - any time there's a majority that party won't want to change things.

Jalapeno

You may have forgotten there was an electoral reform referendum under the coalition (very limited in scope) that was defeated (by voter apathy mainly).

Not going to change for a generation IMHO

guitarfishbay

Jalapeno said:

You may have forgotten there was an electoral reform referendum under the coalition (very limited in scope) that was defeated (by voter apathy mainly).

 That referendum was a total shambles. A lot of people didn't understand AV and bought the conservative general line on 'losers could win'.

Personally I think AV is slightly better than FPTP but not as good as PR. So while I voted for it, it wasn't what I really hoped would be on the table, and I think that a lot of people felt that way 

Bidley

Jalapeno said:

You may have forgotten there was an electoral reform referendum under the coalition (very limited in scope) that was defeated (by voter apathy mainly).

I didn't even know it happened, so it's probably as much down to campaign apathy as anything else.

Sporky

guitarfishbay said:

Sporky said:

ICBM said:

A proper PR system would have still produced a Tory minority government or a coalition

Assuming everyone still voted the same way - which isn't at all certain, if they understood an alternative system and tactical voting diminished. Which it might.

Surely this outcome is preferable though - if people vote for what they actually want. 

Absolutely.

Jalapeno said:

You may have forgotten there was an electoral reform referendum under the coalition (very limited in scope) that was defeated (by voter apathy mainly).

It was less of a referendum and more of a tiger pit for the Lib Dems to fall into.

Fretwired

The best system is a simple system.

• Scrap the concept of constituency MPs
• Reduce the number of MPs - we don't need 650
• Accept that people vote for who they want as PM and the party they want to rule
• Party leaders have to produce a manifesto which is fact checked by an independent body
• Party leaders pick their ministers so voters know who will be doing what
  
• We vote as we do now except we vote for a PM and a party
  
• Straight PR - get 40% of the vote you get 40% of the seats
• Party with the most seats forms the government
  
• MPs are nominally allocated to a constituency based on vote with civil service support
  

Job done.

english_bob

Jalapeno said:

You may have forgotten there was an electoral reform referendum under the coalition (very limited in scope) that was defeated (by voter apathy mainly).

I'm not sure it was apathy so much as irritation that we'd been given such a crap choice. If it had been between FPTP and an alternative system the other parties actually wanted it might have gone differently.

Octafish

guitarfishbay said:

Jalapeno said:

You may have forgotten there was an electoral reform referendum under the coalition (very limited in scope) that was defeated (by voter apathy mainly).

 That referendum was a total shambles. A lot of people didn't understand AV and bought the conservative general line on 'losers could win'.

Personally I think AV is slightly better than FPTP but not as good as PR. So while I voted for it, it wasn't what I really hoped would be on the table, and I think that a lot of people felt that way 

It was an appalling stitch up by the self-serving Clegg, a botched referendum on a poor limited choice. He sold out a long term Lib Dem policy for short term fix of power and glory and a role as Dave's gimp, the wanker deserved to lose his seat, should have done so in 2015. The reshaping of our democratic/electoral system needs far more care and attention than it got.

Let's not forget as well that electoral reform was one of New Labour's/Blair's policies, but they they discarded it because they had more important duties poodling for Bush and embarking on illegal wars 

guitarfishbay

New Labour had a giant majority under FPTP, it was no longer in their interests at least early on

ICBM

stickyfiddle said:

The German system seems ideal. Local votes for local MPs, plus a national vote at the same time for the party. All winning local MPs get a seat, then extra seats are added to make each party's ratio match the national vote. Not sure if they have another separate vote the chancellor or if it's just whoever has more seats, but it's quite straightforward and removes any potential for tactical voting because you can vote for a good local MP even if they don't work for the party you want running the country.

I think this is called "additional member plus" and is similar to the way the Scottish and Welsh Assemblies are elected, but with the added proportionality requirement.

Either this or STV seem the best options.

Bear in mind the German system was put in place by British constitution experts after WWII to prevent a repeat of the 1930s… the mistake was not to apply what was clearly thought to be a good system here as well.

guitarfishbay said:

Jalapeno said:

You may have forgotten there was an electoral reform referendum under the coalition (very limited in scope) that was defeated (by voter apathy mainly).

 That referendum was a total shambles. A lot of people didn't understand AV and bought the conservative general line on 'losers could win'.

Personally I think AV is slightly better than FPTP but not as good as PR. So while I voted for it, it wasn't what I really hoped would be on the table, and I think that a lot of people felt that way 

Exactly. If anything, AV is a system which favours the major parties, so it's arguable that in some ways it's *worse* than FPTP for being unrepresentative, for smaller parties. I think this is a reason some people voted against it too. I voted for it, but only because I thought that once the system had been changed it would be easier to change it again, to a better one.

In either case, it was intentionally set up by Cameron to make sure it was defeated, to kick Clegg's coalition requirement that there be a referendum on electoral reform into the long grass. Why Clegg walked straight into the very obvious trap, I don't know.