Cleese on PR (full length)

[@wildsurfer12]

Can we launch a petition to get John Cleese to remake this using updated examples?

[@paulebroderick]

Very relevant today … Plaid Cymru 4 seats / 194,811 votes … Reform 4 seats / 4,073,607 votes (with 6 seats yet to declare)

[@OblivifrekTV]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/jJzFcqCIq5iqqNU this was 5 years ago by John Cleese

[@harrypogue]

@@OblivifrekTV Even that is horribly out of date. Cleese tells us how disproportional certain elections in the past were, but 2024 took disproportionality to a whole new level.

[@FrankWernPennant]

Another aspect of PR he didn't mention is the fact that PR makes it easier for a new party to break into the system. This will prevent the ossification of the system you now see in the US. With more parties getting a realistic look-in, voters will find it easier to transfer their vote to a different party than last time. Thus the political system becomes more fluid and more reprentative of the ebb and flow of the public's views.

[@cainebez3318]

I love how this is still relevant to US, UK, AUS in 2016

[@xoxolatl]

Still relevant in Canada, too.

[@cainebez3318]

@Drew G 😟

[@EverythingZen14]

This makes so much sense... I kinda wish we (US) would do it. When I was really young, and was first told about Democracy, I actually thought our system of gov't worked like a PR system (cuz in my little head, with little prior influence, PR made the most sense!)

[@eymed2023]

Honestly, proportional representation is such a common sense idea that I'm amazed it isn't a universal standard.

[@tommonto7074]

he is referring to STV, where ranked votes are cast in multi-member districts.

[@wildsurfer12]

Who else has come back to watch this 41 years later after Reform UK got 17% of the vote and yet only 4 seats in the 2024 general election?

[@GreggTO]

Despite its age and that it refers, however briefly, to a specific system (PR-STV), this is still the best short video on proportional representation ever made.

[@SGIGreenPartyCanada]

Thanks for the longer version of Proportional Representation by John Cleese. The Greens would like to see some form of Prop. Rep. in Canada. Please get out and vote.

[@iwazhear77]

More relevant than ever. UKIP got 12.7% of the vote and only 1 seat. Meanwhile SNP is now the third largest party in Britain. Fucking nuts. Just because you don't win a district doesn't mean you shouldn't be represented. And just because you get a plurality in a district doesn't mean you should be the their sole representative. At least it's not as bad as the US, where we literally have a choice between two parties!

[@mildlydispleased3221]

UKIP are fascists.

[@xoxolatl]

Canada, the USA, and the UK - all countries using First Past the Post - all have strong, organized citizen demand for Proportional Representation, while voters in countries with PR aren't clamouring for FPtP. That speaks volumes to me.

[@macronencer]

Blimey, that's a blast from the past! I had forgotten all about David Owen, and this brought it all back - my time at university, Thatcher in power etc. This message is even more important and relevant now, in the light of Thursday's bizarrely-skewed seats/votes graphs, which look pretty similar to the ones shown here.

[@TacticusPrime]

Why doesn't everyone use this? I'm going to be pushing for this in America.

[@rithompson]

This is so relevant for today. We want STV - don't settle for AV, Mr Clegg!

[@eymed2023]

STV is basically AV but with multiple winners. It leads to a roughly proportional legislature as a result.

[@WJINTL]

Was relevant in 1987 Still relevant in 2024

[@thesmity31]

They really should remake this with relevant statistics for today.

[@TruthofDilly]

@Strafio - Will do. Cheers my friend. I'm glad that there are people in the world who care enough to share and explore ideas that are for the greater good of the people. Many thanks.

[@HektorBandimar]

This video needs updating to suit us now in 2024.

[@motzPHaragas]

John Cleese discusses on STV, part of the Proportional representation. Other countries uses D'hondt,Sainte-Lague and largest remainder method.

[@marris42]

its depressing that this was 30 years ago...

[@nieson0727]

What a gem! And it certainly is slightly aggravating that the UK hasn't taken on PR yet. Even to this day. Guess we'll be seeing reds and blues in battle for some time.

[@smistonian2499]

Still very true to this day. Electoral reform now!

[@Ushio01]

Yep we need the unemployment levels of Spain, Italy and France. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_in_Europe_by_unemployment_rate Sure Germany has low unemployment but they also have a successful manufacturing industry.

[@HistoritorJimaldus]

Ushio01 non sequitur

[@Ushio01]

@You can eat in class!! Hey little kid sorry but your replying to a comment from 5 years ago when you were still in primary school and the world has changed since then.

[@irishgodfatherchris]

@flixuk no but it does aid in it, we use it here in Australia to elect our Senate also in my state we use it elect the members of the Legislative Council (upper house)

[@fragglet]

It seems like the arguments against PR are similar to those against a dictatorship. "But how can we have an efficient government if there isn't a single person with absolute power in charge of everything?"

[@sachinkainth9508]

Aaaah, VHS, I remember those.

[@rucksplash12]

In the USA, "ranked choice voting" usually refers to what is called the "Alternative Vote" in the rest of the world. It's more commonly called "Instant Runoff Voting" here. It's the system used in Australia and Irish presidential elections--you rank the candidates, and the lowest candidates are eliminated and their votes transferred until one candidate has a majority. It means a candidate cannot win a seat with just 49% of the vote, as is common in the US, but it is NOT a form of PR.

[@EvdogMusic]

17 people can't count up to five

[@rucksplash12]

Cleese is describing the Single Transferable Vote (used in the Australian Senate, the Irish Dail, and in Malta), which is for multiple candidate elections. The mechanics are the same as IRV, but you don't need a majority, but rather 1/(n+1) of the vote, where n is the number of seats. So if there are three seats, you need 25% to get elected, and once elected, those votes you have over 25% are transferred to remaining candidates, so everyone's vote has the same value the whole way through.

[@OwenBlacker]

@PurushaDesa Yellow wasn't the SDP party colour, it was red white and blue, hence the stripes on the bar charts at the beginning...

[@JimCullen]

That's correct, in STV you are far more likely to have minority governments. But he discusses this. They need to reach a compromise that can get the support of at least 50% of parliament, and by extension 50% of the population. That means you won't be seeing a party that only actually has 40% of people voting for it take be able to use its "mandate" to implement policies that 60% of the population disagrees with.

[@UkrToday]

Actually each state can decide individually. It main use would be in electing the senate or electoral college. State legislators can and should adopt it for its own representative model first.

[@UkrToday]

Hybrid systems such as MMP do not work. They create distortions in the equality of mandate, A super set or sub set of representatives. With each electorate returning the same number of representatives ensures that each electorate has equal value and equal representation. Preferential Proportional voting excludes the need for a voting threshold and provides for up to 97.5% the right to be represented by someone of their choosing.

[@phildman132]

A lot of the statistics in this short film are no longer relevant, it being 25 years old, and the balance is slightly fairer (Librals now have 61 seats) but the underlying message still is. Thankfully looks like we might get a hung parliament this year which will allow them to try and sort this mess out.

[@Strafio]

@TruthofDilly Not in the STV system described here. Did you notice how candidates were numbered in order of preference? This is because the second and third choices count for something. The extreme parties wouldn't get the second and third choices required to get in.

[@mkeenan204]

From what I've heard, the VRA makes it difficult to implement PR at the US federal level, thanks to unintended consequences. They banned at-large elections, to stop the use of "bloc voting" which was often used in the South and tends to lead to landslides - but it makes PR impossible too.

[@cyanmanta]

The kind of two-party system he described in 1987 is essentially the way our US two-party system works today; nobody has any intelligent ideas, nobody is willing to compromise, and no long-term goals can ever be met because all the Republocrats care about is winning in the short term. We actually seem to pride ourselves on having an electoral system that's about 80 years out of date...

[@TheSurferPenguin]

only watched this because my history teacher said look up proportional representation.

[@jennyaskswhy]

That video was taken 25 years ago and the UK still doesn't have a PR system. And they say that politics moves slowly? rah rah rah

[@harrypogue]

37 years :(

[@IanEiloart]

You're right. Britain hasn't changed the system for its general parliamentary elections. However, we have since established a Scottish Parliament, and a Welsh National Assembly. Both of those are elected by PR. Also, we now have a directly elected London Assembly elected by PR, with a directly elected Mayor. Disgracefully, we still have a second parliamentary chamber (the House of Lords) with no elected members at all!

[@eTechne]

@Experiment47 Not true - the Boundary Commissions are responsible for changes in Constituency Boundaries. Technically they only make recommendations for changes too, & it is up to the Secretary of State to implement them - he/she may reject them if not to their liking.

[@rucksplash12]

There are literally hundreds of types of PR system. The system Cleese is advocating here wouldn't channel power through Chicago, because it's small regional seats of around 5 members. So clusters of 5 existing districts would be replaced by one larger district electing 5 members. If you're thinking of the purest party centered forms of PR, like the Israeli system, you may have a point, but the Israeli system has different strong parties regionally, and 12 different parties won seats last month.

[@lsdvine]

love you john

[@UkrToday]

In order for PR to be effective each electorate MUST return the same number of representatives. (Preferably 5, 7 or 9). The method of voting should be preferential (Single Transferable Voting) with the Meek method of counting. One transaction per candidate (Surplus or exclusion) without segmentation.

[@Stormwern]

Why didn't the PR referendum happen when LD had the swing role? (I'm not British)

[@krismcdermott7319]

Because they were negotiated by the Tories down to a referendum on the Alternative Vote system instead. The referendum happened in 2011 and FPTP won by 65% to 35%. Too many idiots.

[@FirstnameLastname-vs6nh]

Digital Pigeon "too many idiots" story of politics mate.

[@nobad6134]

Digital Pigeon There wasn't enough turnout as not enough people were interested because the Lib Dems failed to sell the issue properly. The Tories also flooded local communities with big money propaganda leaflets. A future referendum has to be on real PR not AV which is still majoritarian plus there has to be equal spending limits.

[@893160007]

any form of porportional representation would be better then the current system in canada usa and brtiain (i think britain hasn't changed but could be wrong)

[@Faboba]

@cardwitch91 PS - Labour will never support PR; it was surprising they were even willing to include AV in their manifesto (though that was promptly withdrawn during negotiations). The MPs in Labour heartlands (primarily Glasgow and the North East) owe their seats to the FPTP system which, if it didn't exist, would lead to the voters of all other parties ejecting them for being corrupt (as happened, even under FPTP in the Glasgow East by-election). Blair promised AV+ in 97 but was blocked by them

[@JimCullen]

If the majority of parliament supports something, it will pass. Parliament is supposed to represent the will of the people, and in theory if 50% of the people don't support something, 50% of parliament shouldn't support it either. Andrew Wilkie is the independent you're talking about, and he's in Reps, not the Senate. Reps DOESN'T have proportional representation, and so an example from it can't really be used as an argument against PR. (cont.)

[@Shelora]

Here in Canada, in British Columbia, we get a chance today to vote on the referendum for STV. Let's join the 21st century, folks! Shelora in Vancouver

[@rucksplash12]

The only place in the US where "ranked choice voting" is used to refer to the STV system is Minneapolis. 3 of the 9 park board members and 2 of the 6 taxation board members are elected citywide by STv, called "multi-member ranked choice." All other city elections, including all city council seats, are by single-winner ranked choice (Alternative Vote). The only other place in the US where they use STV is Cambridge, MA, but there they just call it "proportional representation."

[@irishgodfatherchris]

@Udany147 I think a Bicameral Parliament is best because it allows for the sharing of power and not just having one house forcing their will on everyone else, but just have an Upper House elected by STV from Multi-Member Electorates.

[@fairvotereform]

@kittykittyfaery 1987....we've updated description

[@tanyakasim3988]

This sounds very much like Ranked Choice Voting.

[@drlobomalo]

Start at the local level. In the US many localities have initiative and referendum. If you go for STV (see Wikipedia) you can promote it as the Irish System since it is used in Ireland. If you choose List PR (open or closed, see wikipedia) you can call it the Israeli System or Dutch System since that one is used in Israel and Netherlands.

[@davimurph]

I notice that there is a lot of discussion about differences between electoral systems in the comments on this video. If you aren't entirely clear on the differences between FPTP, AV, and the different kinds of PR then can I recommend Vernon Bogdanor's book "What is Proportional Representation"? It really explains everything very clearly. If you don't fancy a book try the fact sheets produced by the Electoral Reform Society.

[@wisdumcube]

I wish we had instructional videos this in the U.S.

[@pjwils]

@irishgodfatherchris What is that institution called?

[@NerdyLiberal]

With a native son on the ballot, Chicago was less than 40% of the vote in 2008. I think that they should get about that much representation in the house, don't you agree? In fact, I think switching to this system would lower Chicago's power in several ways. If you are still not convinced, please reply and I think I will be able to address your concerns. This is honest to god a good system.

[@Faboba]

@cardwitch91 (As you can read in David Laws book) We did push for PR but the Tories wouldn't accept it; they'd rather have governed as a minority and called fresh elections. We assumed given AV was half of PR-STV, the system of PR the LibDems and Electoral Reform Society support, people would vote for it and it was better than nothing (PR-STV is AV in constituencies with multiple members, like Ireland and Scottish councils). We underestimated the audacious mendacity of the NO campaign.

[@mutatron]

Yeah, Germany is looking a little thin there. Here's what Wikipedia says: "In France, proportional representation was adopted at the end of World War II, discarded in 1958, then used once more for parliament elections in 1986 and terminated immediately afterwards."

[@TacticusPrime]

@LJAR Political parties are based on broad agreement on philosophies of government/economics/sociology. They collapse when there values or positions don't fit enough of the voters. Like what happened to the Federalists and Whigs in America. They aren't permanent blocs of voters that people join to get elected. In the current system, if a small strongly regional part were to develop (like Bloc Quebecois in Canada) they would have more influence than a party with more support but diffused.

[@mutatron]

Difficult to get that in the US. We'd have to have a Constitutional Convention, which means we'd have to get 2/3rds of both houses just to propose it, and why would they do that? And then ratification takes 3/4ths of the states, either through legislatures or conventions. We sure as hell need it, though.

[@Mrajprice87]

I do not care about what the parties think, put all the systems to a referendum and let the people decide. If the parties want to support a particular system, fine, but the decision should be ours!

[@tommonto7074]

he says STV is not so complicated because voters only have to count up to five. But actually the ballot will hold many more than five candidates. But on other hand voters don't have to count even up to five if they dont want to - hopefully when UK gets PR (STV) it will allow voters to mark as few or as many preferences as the voter desires. Even if voter marks just a 1 under STV the vote is more likely to be used to elect someone in the district than under FPTP where voter marks an X. so no voter should have harder time voting under STV than under FPTP.

[@NerdyLiberal]

Good point. He was born in Hawaii. He just went to school/worked/ran for office in Illinois.

[@TruthofDilly]

@Strafio - Ok, thank you for the advice. That's very helpful.

[@TacticusPrime]

@LJAR Look, one man or woman is not going to affect the balance of the House of Commons. The whips keep the party line more or less disciplined. Just because he might be personally against buying more Tridents, that doesn't mean he'll vote against it if the party is voting that way. So you might as well vote for the party whose policies you mostly agree with. Every vote should count. If 4 parties split 25% each, then that's how the seats should go.

[@irishgodfatherchris]

@Udany147 Swedish House of Nobility (Riddarhuset) and its been a Private Institution since 2003

[@irishgodfatherchris]

@WorldNews92 they didn't have a choice they had to make do with a referendum on OPV

[@babyhedgehog1968]

Perhaps the BBC could run this, just to help the rest of the country understand the process, as the news broadcasters seem to get in a muddle explaining it!

[@ToManyPhones]

Oh wow, it's strange seeing the eastern bloc as one on the map.

[@Sarge084]

@deciBit The problem is that the two parties that dominate aren't interested in a system that will see them lose that dominance, and we carry on with a two party battle at every election. The only way to break the stalemate is for the Liberals to get a lot more votes and a few more MP's in the commons to force a debate. The growing number of independent MP's is a clear sign that most voters are fed up with the usual two party battle, where the real issues get lost in snipping at each other.

[@ENoob]

@LJAR Clesse in talking about AV rather than pure PR. but the model that people have done to see what past elections would have been like actually show it could have been worse than the current system. It isn't a bad system as such, I just don't think it will be miles better than what we have now. I will probably vote for it when the referendum comes around, because I would like to see more coalitions like the current one in the UK.

[@Strafio]

@TruthofDilly Search for "Single Transferable Vote" in Wiki for more details. You'll find the system to be pretty sound.

[@paulebroderick]

Why in this video does Ireland not exist?

[@TheSorrowLives]

I'm for clear open politics no back room dealing (which I believe both FPTP and PR give more of). IRV or AV forced the politicians to us because they know that they cannot rely on people to vote for them out of principle alone. Also in the last election the BNP would have one 12 seats in PR (see wikipedia), i'm still yet to see how I would ensure that my area wouldn't get a BNP MP even though they were defeated quite heavily in my area.

[@Richyhello]

Somebody answer me this. Wouldn't this system increase the possibility of hung parliaments...and, by quite a margin?

[@TheSorrowLives]

It's great that someone like Cleese did this and showed it clearly and concise. But I still disagree. AV (or IRV voting) is a superior system (although it does take aspect of PR etc etc. and fairer overall, to dismiss FPTP just because it's in ignored it's good points. Just look at the last few days in the UK with a hung parliament, back room deals, unclear and discrete politics and that will be EVERY election. Just because FPTP doesn't work doesn't mean PR is right.

[@893160007]

@CobaltKris I'm the same in Canada my province had only 1 non conservative last election all conservative the year before yet the province voted like 50 some percent conservative

[@Faboba]

@cyanmanta Actually it's even worse than that, because the role of money in US politics means a) you can effectively only run for the Senate and above if you have considerable independent wealth, b) you can only run for executive offices if you can raise a large amount of money from big money donors (corporations and special interest groups) and c) by consequence there is a heavy skew to the right-wing and strong resistance to change as anyone elected by the current system knows how to work it.

[@Tj930]

Yeah - "Turkeys voting for Christmas" - we have the same problems here. After the expenses scandal, we've got MPs clambering for the casting vote on their pay and conditions.

[@tenmantaylor]

Wondered why Germany looked so small on the map then realised the wall didn't fall for another 2 years!

[@finehomemadewine]

WHAT YEAR IS IT FROM, PLEASE??

[@davidbatthews3811]

It was probably circa 1986 as it was after the 1983 election and after 1985 by the sounds of it as he mentions Italy overtaking the UK standard of living and I think that was 1985, also before 1987 GE.

[@finehomemadewine]

@@davidbatthews3811 Thank You very much.

[@ENoob]

@TacticusPrime If something does not have the support of a significant majority of people then the government shouldn't be doing it anyway, so frankly the more dissenting voices the better, I feel. People represent parties because they come with a core of voters that will vote for whoever wears the right colour rosette. They agree with some of the principles, but in reality parties are small coalitions of people with similar, but differing views on many things.

[@Ucofatoffski]

I want to know more about what's going to happen to the New Zealanders next month...

[@rucksplash12]

Since Israel and the Netherlands are frequently used as examples of dysfunctional systems by the media, that may not be a good idea. Also, most states have strict limits on what election systems municipalities can use, and PR may not be allowed. The only state where STV is definitely legal statewide is MN. In CA, Davis was prohibited from adopting it. In MA, I believe only Cambridge is grandfathered in. It would be difficult to adopt list PR in places where municipal elections are non-partisan.

[@pastyman001]

We need real PR voting so badly and not AV.

[@markstringer9788]

Nice idea but it's a bit out of date now, can we step back a bit and try again?

[@ENoob]

@TacticusPrime So that is another reason not to have PR. Under PR the whips have even more power. If your seat in parliament depends on being selected for the party list then you are even more a slave of the party's whips and less a servant/representative of the voters. There are other ways of getting a more equitable distribution of seats without closing the public voice out of the debate even more than it is now. The more independent critical voices the better, PR silences them.

[@irishgodfatherchris]

@cardwitch91 before you reform your voting system how about electing your upper house, other countries do, hell Sweden still has a House of Lords but because of the way the system was reformed it is now a private institution rather than a House of Assembly.

[@rucksplash12]

The best shot to get widespread PR is to have voting rights lawyers start advocating it in VRA violation cases. I know in Texas, judges mandated cumulative or limited voting in some school board elections in the 1990s, and in 1995 George W. Bush (of all people), signed a law allowing school boards to use it statewide. I don't know how many have done so voluntarily, and the law may have been repealed by the GOP at some point since then.

[@onepartofone]

2010 election showed that its time we move on and go for PR.

[@893160007]

canadas is too its sucks for exmple in the last federal election the conservative party got about 60% of the vote in Alberta but won all but 1 seat (which was a huge surprise)

[@SuperYogSothoth]

@timtba Indeed, his argument falls flat on its face when you think theyre probably one of the only truly oppressive regimes that have come in through those means, compared with the multitude of others which did not.

[@10hawell]

37 years later... XD see you guys next century when it suuuure will happen

[@poofacebananza]

o god this is so relevate to whats happening now

[@alexlodda]

@TheHenryCatman They will get MMP (Mixed Member Proportional), I presume. Or a chance to vote on the referendum for MMP. Cos we did around that time (late 80s I think). Well, THEY (grown-ups) did. I was at school still, but I remember the changeover from FPP. Aside: Awesome! McNaught on the nostalgic frontline. Who would have though that a return to the Beeb could eclipse the glitz of the NZ broadcasting dream?

[@PurushaDesa]

Love that garish yellow golfing shirt he's wearing, to show off his party colour!

[@3tangle3]

@ianeiloart i hope we take to the street properly if nothing changes after the election

[@GauravVaidya42]

That _was_ exactly 40 seconds (2:20 to 3:00). Awesome.

[@AndyPVale]

51,000 views, 432 likes, 1 dislike. What does that say? Also, I tried phoning the number (just in case) and it's not recognised, worth a try even if it is 23 years old!

[@ENoob]

@TacticusPrime You are right, the SNP and Plaid Cymru have more influence and power than the BNP or UKIP for example despite having fewer votes. THis is a problem with the FPTP system - which is by no means ideal. However under PR you have the opposite problem that small groups tend to hold the balance of power at the expense of the main bloc of opinion among the electorate. I am not saying i think FPTP is the best way of doing things, I just don't think that PR is a step forward.

[@jebthegodemperor7301]

this problem could be solved through an independently elected Chief Executive like the President in the United States.