Jonathan Reynolds' Proportional Representation Speech

MPs blocked Jonathan Reynolds' Proportional Representation Bill from going forward on Wed 16 December. In the chamber, Jonathan spoke on behalf for the 6,000 who wrote to their MPs, the 500,000 who signed petitions and the tens of millions whose votes were wasted by First Past the Post. This is a speech that probably won't be on the evening news, but it's one everyone needs to hear.
Find out more at www.electoral-reform.org.uk

[@amamenec]

A superb speech and yes, very timely, the need for electoral change is urgent in national government. I for one am sick of my vote being wasted as I live in a Tory safe seat. 'Safe Seats' undermine democracy, disempower the electorate, and make our country look antiquated and ridiculous. Change is urgently needed. Bravo Jonathan Reynolds.

[@fat.cat.]

Where I live (SE England) the seat has been Tory since inception. There is no chance of electing anyone else, despite having a huge number of people who want change. Also, people correctly state that a 3rd party vote is a wasted vote, yet 3rd parties are more popular in my area than Labour (universally hated). So Green or Lib Dems would have a good chance here with a proportional system like STV.

[@EdrikHaraldsson]

Hear hear. Jonathan Reynold's has put the arguments extremely well.

[@davidwright425]

Yes, millions of electors know that, if they live in a 'safe seat', their vote is a wasted vote if they don't support the 'safe' party. Can't be right.

[@chrispy61]

I just signed the petition, tired of my vote going to waste!!

[@kyleduncan3806]

Absolutely incredible. That had dignity, consideration, compassion, equality, sense and heart. Britain simply isn't the country which I was told it was as a child. It's a sad state of affairs. We could be so good, life could be so much better.

[@TigerPrawn_]

This general election, the Tories won with a majority of 36.8% of the vote, to quote one of my favourite people, Natalie Bennett: "In no sane world is that a ruling majority." I went to a local meeting in the neighbouring constituency (both of ours have Tory MPs) and when everyone attending was asked, "Who agrees with FPTP?" Literally no one put their hands up. It's ridiculous that we are doing nothing about it, the last, big reform of Parliament was when women got the vote.... Well said, Jonathan!

[@dorothyforsyth]

I am long time supporter of STV and this was an excellent speech.How can we ever get change when those who benefit from - first past the post wont vote for it. Dorothy Forsyth Eastbourne Green Party

[@StuartAken]

A well-considered and argued proposal. It shows how utterly disrespectful of public opinion are the majority of MPs. These people are supposed to REPRESENT us, supposed to speak on our behalf, protect and express our interests, not their own. If your MP was either not present at this event, or was one of those who blocked the bill, perhaps it would be a good idea to challenge him/her on that stance and get that MP to take notice of your opinion on this vital matter.

[@RalfAnodin]

I think it is saner to take the “realistic” viewpoint that MPs are not suppose to represent us, but to lead the policies of the state. Whether they do it well or terribly, they do indeed fulfill this function. From there we can discuss ways to make them do their job in ways that satisfy a wider amount of citizens, PR being one of them. Assuming that MPs are supposed to represent us is just so far from reality that it makes the idealist in me fade too quickly into cynicism.

[@StuartAken]

@@RalfAnodin They are, in fact, employed by us, the public, to represent our views. That is their official raison d'etre. Our taxes pay their inflated wages, expenses, and subsidise their refreshments, all of which means they have no real experience of the 'normal' workplace. That they fail, on a daily basis, to fulfil their duties is down to their gradual implementation of self-serving rules that ensure almost everything they do is actually governed by them and not an independent outside body. It's why we need a complete overhaul of government if we're ever to have a true democracy here.

[@RalfAnodin]

@@StuartAken In an ideal world, they would “represent” us, but that clearly is not the case and that has never really happened. Historically, they’re a bunch of rich powerful people that went from advising the king to fully taking control, getting their legitimacy from the election process which has fortunately expanded other time. I prefer to take as a starting point that this is in no way a “representative democracy” but rather an “elected aristocracy” and that this should be acknowledged as being obvious and discussed as such. From this starting point we can ask “how to make this system more democratic”. That’s what suffragettes did and they allowed the whole system to become a very little bit more democratic. I prefer to get rid of the fable that this is a democracy because that, in my case, only leads me to being bitter. Whereas starting from the idea that this is in no way a democracy and that there’s a long way for us to make this system fairer gives me hope. P.-S. I even think that the process of election cannot produce a “representative.” If we look at it this way the it can only come out as deceiving. As opposed to, for example, randomly selecting someone, the process of election gives _power_ to an individual or to a body and from there they stop being representative while they get the power and legitimacy to _act_ and impose their desire. This is not necessarily a bad thing but it has to be considered for what it is. A representative does what you want them to do, for example if you cannot join a meeting someone else reads a speech you wrote, and vote as you would like.

[@StuartAken]

@@RalfAnodin You make a convincing argument, and I agree with you. History is often forgotten, neglected, distorted, or simply not taught, yet it is essential to an understanding of any current situation. It's one of the reasons I suggested our entire system of government needs reform. But how to go about this, when the whole system has been set up to be self-sustaining and free from any real interference from outside its membership is almost impossible to imagine. The idea of revolution comes to mind, but the results of such action are generally not helpful to the people. The tragedy is we now have the technology that would permit a proper democracy to operate, but those in charge of lawmaking are unlikely to use the technological route to a destination what would ultimately remove them from power.

[@davidbeacham5786]

I did drift off part way through but I totally agree with Jonathon. I too live in a safe seat and strangely have only ever met one person that'll admit voting for him. I don't completely agree with any one party but my current MP certainly doesn't represent us here!

[@ajuk1]

Shame it's MMP and not STV, you don't need to have two kinds of MP.

[@DaveStewartLondon]

Good grief, it must be so frustrating to do so much research, and craft such a superb speech, and have your efforts go absolutely nowhere.

[@JwayT]

Should have happened in 2015

[@catmonarchist8920]

A system like Wales would lead to a thousand years of Tory rule

[@RalfAnodin]

A system like Wales would lead to a government and policies that represents 50% of the voters. Great if it has to be tories, what’s the problem with that? But my bet is that under PR much of the labour and tories would collapse.

[@catmonarchist8920]

@@RalfAnodin no it wouldn't. Look at some actual Welsh elections like 2016 where 31.5% of the list vote gives 2 short of a majority. Welsh Labour has never broken 40% of the list vote and gets to rule forever. Tories are the plurality party in the UK as Labour is in Wales It has occasionally represented a majority like first past the post does (unlike Scotland which has never once represented a majority of the party vote). 'proportional representation ' doesn't actually mean majority support for anything as countries like Turkey also illustrate.

[@RalfAnodin]

@@catmonarchist8920 I agree that the Welsh/German system is not great, it does favor corruption that is inherent to FPTP and party dictatorship of party-list PR. Though it still gives better policy results and more overall citizen satisfaction than FPTP and the pure party-list PR they have in Israel or Turkey, especially when they have high entry threshold like in Turkey, where it then cannot really be considered “democratic” anymore. STV like in Ireland, or open-list like in the Nordic countries / Netherlands / Switzerland would go closer towards a government that represents 50% of voters, although that still excludes absentee voters. But that would hurt so much Labour and the Tories that I doubt the UK will take this direction without a deeper social and political crisis than what the UK is going through today, and yet the outcome of a crisis is rarely “more democracy.” Anyhow, only the Swiss direct democracy can be said to produce a system and policies that a majority of citizens agrees with. But I doubt that could be put in place without much blood and the threat of a civil war.

[@catmonarchist8920]

@@RalfAnodin the German system is massively better than the Welsh system you just don't know if you'll have 600 MPs or 800 MPs until election day 😵 STV will represent a majority if you count representing people's 3rd or 4th choice as representing as much as their first. I'll give you Scandinavian-style list PR as representing a majority most of the time but I too doubt it will ever happen. BallotboxScotland did a mock-up map of that would look like in 2019 but there's no momentum. People who advocate reform in the UK want a mixed member system or STV 😩

[@RalfAnodin]

@@catmonarchist8920 Thanks for the precision. I’m French, I live in the Netherlands and my partner is Danish, hence I have more familiarity with the Dutch and Danish respective PR systems than I have with STV, but from looking at Ireland it seems to me that it works just as well. The main “frustration” in the Netherlands is that the lists are not completely open and a substantive amount of votes must be casted for an individual candidate to favor him in the party list. In 2006 there was a “Burgerforum Kiesstelsel” (citizen assembly) that advocated for more open lists but as expected the government in charge at the time buried the idea. In Denmark frustration arise from the threshold that, although low, still has an impact. My partner would have liked to give support to a smaller party but eventually voted “tactically” for a bigger party she supported less because she did not want he vote to be waster in case the smaller party did not pass. STV seems to correct both these issues, which is why it seems great to me. Maybe the constituencies in Ireland are just to small, but if they were expanded to 10~15 seats that would correct the lack of proportionality. Another inspiring place to look at is Switzerland (ah! Switzerland!). They use many different voting systems in all cantons but the one used for the National Council is impressive. They basically have as many votes as there are seats and can split them the way they want in between the candidates. They can give one vote to many candidates or they can also give all their votes to one candidates if they will, or any possible combination.

[@ninirema4532]

लु हजुरहरू सबैलाई हार्दिक नमस्कार साथै शुभकामना छ।🗻🗻🗻🗻🗻🌍🌋🏔🌎🌏🏝🏕⛱🐂🐃🦄🦄🐷🐩🐕🐕🐎🐎🐈🐒🏕🏝🌎🌎🏔🌋🌋🗻