The Case for Electoral Reform - Andrew Doyle

Proportional representation would be a boon to our democracy...
💥Join us on our Journey to 1 Million Subscribers💥
Andrew's Substack - andrewdoyle.substack.com/p/th...
Andrew's Twitter - / andrewdoyle_com
Join our exclusive TRIGGERnometry community on Locals! triggernometry.locals.com/
OR Support TRIGGERnometry Here:
Bitcoin: bc1qm6vvhduc6s3rvy8u76sllmrfpynfv94qw8p8d5
Music by: Music by: Xentric | [e-mail] | www.xentricapc.com/ KZbin: @xentricapc
Buy Merch Here:
www.triggerpod.co.uk/shop/
Advertise on TRIGGERnometry:
[e-mail]
Join the Mailing List:
www.triggerpod.co.uk/#mailing...
Find TRIGGERnometry on Social Media:
/ triggerpod
/ triggerpod
/ triggerpod
About TRIGGERnometry:
Stand-up comedians Konstantin Kisin (@konstantinkisin) and Francis Foster (@francisjfoster) make sense of politics, economics, free speech, AI, drug policy and WW3 with the help of presidential advisors, renowned economists, award-winning journalists, controversial writers, leading scientists and notorious comedians.

[@triggerpod]

Subscribe for more!

[@Pikkiwoki]

I love all your stoopid little faces! Thanks for being you!

[@TheWorldTeacher]

🐟 22. ILLEGITIMATE GOVERNANCES: SOCIALISM (and its more extreme form, communism) is intrinsically evil, because it is based on the ideology of social and economic egalitarianism, which is both a theoretical and a practical impossibility. Equality exists solely in abstract concepts such as mathematics and arguably in the sub-atomic realm. Many proponents of socialism argue that it is purely an economic system and therefore independent of any particular form of governance. However, it is inconceivable that socialism/communism could be implemented on a nationwide scale without any form of government intervention. If a relatively small number of persons wish to unite in order to form a commune or worker-cooperative, that is their prerogative, but it could never work in a country with a large population, because there will always exist entrepreneurs desirous of engaging in wealth-building enterprises. Even a musician who composes a hit tune wants his song to succeed and earn him inordinate wealth. Socialism reduces individual citizens to utilities, who, in practice, are used to support the ruling elite, who are invariably despotic scoundrels, and very far from ideal leaders (i.e. compassionate and righteous monarchs). Those citizens who display talent in business or the arts are either oppressed, or their gifts are coercively utilized by the corrupt state. Despite purporting to be a fair and equitable system of wealth distribution, those in leadership positions seem to live a far more luxurious lifestyle than the mass of menial workers. Wealth is effectively stolen from the rich. Most destructively, virtuous and holy teachings (“dharma”, in Sanskrit) are repressed by the irreligious and ILLEGITIMATE “government”. The argument that some form of government WELFARE programme is essential to aid those who are unable to financially-support themselves for reasons beyond their control, is fallacious. A righteous ruler (i.e. a saintly monarch) will ensure the welfare of each and every citizen by encouraging private welfare. There is no need for a king to extort money from his subjects in order to feed and clothe the impoverished. Of course, in the highly-unlikely event that civilians are unwilling to help a person in dire straits, the king would step-in to assist that person, as one would expect from a patriarch (father of his people). The head of any nation ought to be the penultimate patriarch, not a selfish buffoon. DEMOCRACY is almost as evil, because, just as the rabble favoured the murderous Barabbas over the good King Jesus, the ignorant masses will overwhelmingly vote for the candidate which promises to fulfil their inane desires, rather than one which will enforce the law, and promote a wholesome and just society. Read Chapter 12 for the most authoritative and concise exegesis of law, morality, and ethics, currently available. Even in the miraculous scenario where the vast majority of the population are holy and righteous citizens, it is still immoral for them to vote for a seemingly-righteous leader. This is because that leader will not be, by definition, a king. As clearly and logically explicated in the previous chapter of this Holy Scripture, MONARCHY is the only lawful form of governance. If an elected ruler is truly righteous, he will not be able to condone the fact that the citizens are paying him to perform a job (which is a working-class role), and that an inordinate amount of time, money and resources are being wasted on political campaigning. Furthermore, an actual ruler does not wimpishly pander to voters - he takes power by (divinely-mandated) force, as one would expect from the penultimate alpha-male in society (the ultimate alpha-male being a priest). The thought of children voting for who will be their parents or teachers, would seem utterly RIDICULOUS to the average person, yet most believe that they are qualified to choose their own ruler - they are most assuredly not. Just as a typical child fails to understand that a piece of sweet, juicy, healthy, delicious fruit is more beneficial for them than a cone of pus-infested, fattening, diabetes-inducing ice-cream, so too can the uneducated proletariat not understand that they are unqualified to choose their own leader, even after it is logically explained to them (as it is in this chapter, as well as in the previous chapter). And by “uneducated”, it is simply meant that they are misguided in the realities of life and in righteous living (“dharma”, in Sanskrit), not in facts and figures or in technical training. Intelligence doesn't necessarily correlate to wisdom. No socialist or democratic government will educate its citizens sufficiently well that the citizens have the knowledge of how to usurp their rule. To put it frankly, democracy is rule by the “lowest common denominator”. It should be obvious that ANARCHY can never ever succeed, because even the smallest possible social unit (the nuclear family) requires a dominator. Any family will fall-apart without a strict male household head. In fact, without the husband/father, there is no family, by definition. The English noun “husband” comes from the Old Norse word “hûsbôndi”, meaning “master of the house”. The same paradigm applies to the extended family, which depends on a strong patriarchal figure (customarily, the eldest or most senior male). Likewise with clans, tribes, villages, towns, cities, and nations or countries. Unfortunately, there are many otherwise-intelligent persons who honestly believe that an ENTIRE country can smoothly run without a leader in place. Any sane person can easily understand that even a nuclear family is unable to function properly without a head of the house, what to speak of a populous nation. The reason for anarchists' distrust of any kind of government is due to the corrupt nature of democratic governments, and the adulteration of the monarchy in recent centuries. However, if anarchists were to understand that most all so-called “kings/queens” in recent centuries were not even close to being true monarchs, they may change their stance on that inane “system”. Most of the problems in human society are directly or indirectly attributable to this relatively modern phenomenon (non-monarchies), since it is the government’s role and sacred DUTY to enforce the law (see Chapter 12), and non-monarchical governments are themselves unlawful. One of the many sinister characteristics of democracy, socialism, and other evil forms of governance, is the desire for their so-called “leaders” to control, or at least influence, the private lives of every single citizen (hence the term “Nanny State”). For example, in the wicked, decadent nations in which this holy scripture was composed, The Philippine Islands and The Southland (or “Australia”, as it is known in the Latin tongue), the DEMONIC governments try, and largely succeed, in controlling the rights of parents to properly raise, discipline and punish their children according to their own morals, compulsory vaccination of infants, enforcing feminist ideology, limiting legitimate powers an employer has over his servants, subsidizing animal agriculture, persecuting religious leaders (even to imprisonment and death, believe it or not. Personally, I have been jailed thrice for executing God’s perfect and pure will), and even trying to negatively influence what people eat and wear. Not that a government shouldn’t control what its citizens wear in public, but it should ensure that they are MODESTLY dressed, according to the guidelines outlined in Chapter 28, which is hardly the case in Australia, the Philippines, and similar nations. At least ninety-nine per cent of Filipinas, for instance, are transvestinal, despite Philippines pretending to be a religious nation. Cont...

[@republicoftexas4855]

😮😮su6😮d6😮😮😮😅du😮 2🎉🎉:33 😮😮😮😮😮d😮d😢is 🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉😮😮fo🎉r 😂🎉🎉🎉🎉😮🎉🎉🎉😮🎉😮😅😅😅🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉😮🎉😮😮d😅🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉😢🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉😂🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉😂😂🎉😢😅🎉😂🎉😢🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉😅🎉🎉😂🎉🎉😅🎉😂🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉 2:33 🎉🎉😂😅😅I 🎉🎉🎉 🎉l7🎉🎉😂🎉🎉😅sss 2:33 😮😮😂🎉🎉🎉🎉😂😢🎉😂🎉​@@Pikkiwoki🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉

[@republicoftexas4855]

T😮😮d😮9s😮iff9😮can 😮😮g8😮😮fus😅😊😅😮fos😅go😢😮😮😊xyy😮t😊

[@republicoftexas4855]

😅stuff d😅7dfhd😮kdis😅is f

[@forestgump99]

How about a political party that talks about being in 'office ' rather than in 'power'...

[@MrJREllman]

hear hear

[@Sam-es2gf]

The fact nobody from the Conservatives or Labour spoke against FPTP the last time round tells you everything you need to know. The current system favours them to the point they can ignore what voters want. All they need to do is wait for people to get sick of whoever is in power, even though they're barely indistinguishable at this point. Both captured parties running the country like a corporation in managed decline. Taking as much as they can for them and their friends, living on the echoes of previous generations that actually loved and worked for their country instead of salting the earth for our children by investing in nothing but ideology and importing millions of third worlders to destroy as many communities as possible.

[@ajs41]

The ruling Liberals in Canada could have changed the FPTP voting system there if they'd wanted to over the last 10 years, but instead they're about to lose most of their seats at the next election. Serves them right.

[@sirfultonbishop]

Very well put!

[@DJJ81]

I wouldn’t say the electorate is fickle, more that we’re sick of their shit. I will agree the electorate, as a whole, is far too easily manipulated.

[@juriscervenaks8953]

@DJJ81 We need to change political system from amoral democracy to moral direct voting.

[@sciencefliestothemoon2305]

Exactly. Fickle my ass. That is either click bait or not getting the electorate. I go for the latter

[@angrytedtalks]

The electorate is thick as pig shit; also somewhat fickle or easily brainwashed by ideology, group identity or attracted to popularism. The percentage of people who are actually bright enough, educated enough, aware enough and _moral_ enough to enact what is actually best for the country is so tiny, and also poorly motivated to become the 650 MPs who represent the electorate in Parliament. General elections are the illusion of involvement in government. Very few MPs actually represent the majority of their own constituency, just the highest vote count. An 18 year old racist moron has the same weighted vote as someone with a PhD in Economics and another in Sociology and another in Philosophy. There are only two merits in government; economic (championed by Conservative) and social (championed by Labour). Right now, we need economic merit; to fund the social. Do we vote for a leader, or a party or an ideology? Technically, we vote for a representative, who is not in fact a majority or representative of the party or the leader or the ideology.

[@TheRevanchists]

@@juriscervenaks8953 Direct voting is mob rule, and that's not a good idea either, especially with all the Islamists walking into your country. Once your outnumbered, good luck.

[@veganlolo]

Brilliant as usual, Andrew.

[@tiarabelle6155]

I like this guys segments

[@jonathoncollins6861]

Write it twice and underline it ... EFFECTIVE GOVERNMENT REQUIRES EFFECTIVE OPPOSITION ... no matter the party in power

[@DrGreenGiant]

To add, specifically a balance in opposition, not a binary. It's no good us flip flopping between two parties with voting the opposite way being the*only* recourse for a failing to enact it's manifestos that attracted our vote, ad infenitum.

[@rossilavery]

Your side wins: "you lost, get over it". Your side loses: "we need a new system!" I find the arguments for proportional representation very compelling and would likely be in favour of it. However the problem I stated above is exactly why it will never happen.

[@Chris-xv2gm]

PR is appalling. An eternal fudge with a shit head like Merkel, cobbling together alliances with idiot parties, like the Greens, to hang on to power at all costs. In the UK it would spawn a Muslim or Islam party, who would be guaranteed a number of seat. PR is utter garbage.

[@rafezetter8003]

Only if you're one of the people who even now are still claiming the brexit vote was "rigged" somehow - the people who refuse to accept electoral results are almost always on the left, because they are the petulant children who DEMAND TO HAVE THIER WAY - just look in the news to see which side is the one DEMANDING we do as they say regardless of how much nonsense they are demanding - they are not "right wing".

[@Mitjitsu]

The issue with our political system goes beyond what happens inside Westminster. There's institutions that have enormous power and influence over us that escape any meaningful accountability.

[@Norcha8]

Had we had PR in 2019, Brexit would have been stopped.

[@chrisnorton4382]

​@@Norcha8- you can't get much more democratic than a referendum! Each vote counts equally - something that FPTP never offers.

[@01nm]

As a UK citizen, I don't feel any love for democracy. I will likely move abroad in the near future. What has the UK government done for me? * When I was due to go to university in 2014, the tuition fees tripled. I have a student loan and postgrad loan totalling over £50k 6 years after graduating. * NHS dental services declined so bad I couldn't get dental on the NHS after 20 years old, had to go private as a student. * Government increased interest rates on student loans to as high as 12% during covid. * Energy prices tripled during covid due to terrible fixations on green energy not preparing for international supply issues. * HS2 never materialized, I can't fathom the benefits and it costs the taxpayer so much money for so little result. * Brexit vote was highly manipulated by our own politicians, lies about money going to the NHS, lies about controlling immigration, lost my ability to relocate to the EU without a visa. * Mayor of London's office called a picture of a white family "does not represent real Londoners". * Reports of NHS funds being mishandled with DEI initiatives, gender affirming care for children - I don't care if your own d*** traumatises you if I can't even get my fillings done under 3 figures. * Gay parades in English cities. 'Pride month' seems to happen 2-3x a year. Public nudity being paraded in front of children and my window like its a good thing. * Travelling on UK local coaches/trains costs so much money even with a railcard. * House prices. Good luck buying one and paying it off in a lifetime without generational wealth. * Shared Ownership scheme has gone haywire, service charges doubling or even tripling in some cases for 0 change in benefits. Had a recent faff with one where the managing company were negligent and tried to get tenants to pay collectively £110k for repairs caused by their negligence.

[@ReasonsToComment-ic2cc]

Informative.

[@ajs41]

Why haven't you set up your own party then? Anyone can stand as a candidate.

[@jayaitch2194]

Having lived under the SNP I'd beg that electoral reform takes place UK-wide. There should be no such creature as a career politician; their only interest is themselves and their own ends, they don't give a stuff about the person in the street. The ideal would be the best from each party making up the government.

[@fromchomleystreet]

1:17 Whoever designed the Scottish parliament interior has made the SNPs look like rows of seamstresses in a sweatshop, each making a pair of khaki slacks.

[@DrEhrfurchtgebietend]

Methods like star voting and approval voting get rid of the issue without having to do proportional representation

[@benjamingoldstein1111]

If you change to a system that treats MPs as representatives of parties rather than constituency, you will NEVER have actual parliamentary debates again. EVER. Listen to the EU parliament and hear what garbage that kind of election system produces. You end up with people who couldn't argue themselves out of a paperback because they never have to!

[@redgribben7679]

Just because it doesn't work in the EU, does not mean that it the system that causes the problem. Denmark has representatives of political parties, and i would argue our debates in parliament are more healthy than in Britain, i am fairly certain that other countries with the same type of representation also has healthy debates. The fact that one side of the aisle in Britain could coerce the British population to believe they had the bargaining power to have access to the custom union, and set their own tariff, just tells you how insane your politicians are. That could never come on the table, there is a larger chance that i could be serving unicorn for dinner tomorrow. The EUs problem stems from it being a secondary or even tertiary goal. Most politicians either go to the EU because they cannot go to their own countries national parliaments, or because they are washed up in their national parliaments, thus we either get the newest politicians that have no actual experience, or the old guard, where the times have changed a lot since their hayday. They may have experience, but they simply lack the newest knowledge and understanding of society.

[@benjamingoldstein1111]

@@redgribben7679 You argue that my EU example would not make a perfect indictment for the collectivist system itself, yet you follow that up by indicting the British system with your dissatisfaction about, eh, something with tariffs. Let's put a pin on that specific tariff thing for a moment. Do you see the contradiction in your logic when you declare giving an example of a badly working parliament invalid because it supposedly has singular conditions (washed-up politicians) while regarding one remote topic (tariffs) as sufficient to discredit the personal-accountability voting system of the UK? Maybe there is also a language barrier problem here. 'Coerce to believe' isn't English. I can't know what you mean. I don't speak Danish. So I don't know whether your country is an exception. Israel is an exception. There are specific conditions that allow parliaments to work more or less despite not having a first-past-the-post system. Most importantly, society overall must be in a historical phase that is not authoritarian. That is a very unstable condition. The condition is important because the exceptions can only work when it is easy and swift to found new parties upon disagreements. Without that condition the party leadership will eventually establish organisational control over the lower party members. In a cancel-culture society there are many ways the creation and flourishing of new parties can be foiled unfairly. Once you have too strong in-group-out-group dynamics everybody becomes hell-bent to party loyalty and the system breaks. I propose to go the other way and remove party identifications from the ballots. We need the cognitive threshold of name memory. Elections in a representative democracy are (human resources) HR-decisions. If you are unwilling to learn the names of the candidates, cease your participation in one or more of the decisions to your fellow citizens.

[@redgribben7679]

@@benjamingoldstein1111 The problem is that no matter what, you can never make the person you are voting for accountable for their stated goals during their campaigns. Even if it is illegal in Denmark to vote against your own conviction in parliament, it happens again and again. In Denmark it is part of our constitution, that they must vote on their convictions, and the voters cannot hold them accountable, the problem is that the political parties will do it. And then they do not get reelected, because they need the parties to get elected in the first place. I do not see how you would fix this, it also creates natural bloks in parliaments, if everybody had to go on their own convictions all the time, it would probably be impossible to ever get anything done, as they simple do not have the time to understand every single proposed bill. First Past the post creates the authoritarian systems, both the US and the UK has been infected by extremist ideas within their two biggest parties. Wether you believe the woke or the reactionaries are the problem, they are infecting the center of politics more in two party systems, than in multi party systems. It is much harder for authoritarianism to take hold, when there are more parties. Especially if you need either a public vote or 5/6 of parliament to change the constitution. My example with the tariff was simply put that the campaign for leaving brexit lied through their teeth, and made alot of the voters believe they had the bargaining power to do what they wanted. Though they either would or should have known that wasn't the case. The EU would basically have suicided all their ports, if they agreed to that deal, all imports to the internal market would go to the UK, as they would put lower tariffs. No political organisation would ever agree to that deal. Thus there is a larger chance that i could be serving unicorn for dinner tomorrow.

[@benjamingoldstein1111]

@@redgribben7679 In your first post you said that your system is working. Now you say the exact opposite. You would not know how to make anybody accountable. The British can challenge a parliamentarian with a candidate from a different party or no party at all. Anybody can break off and run independently and with reasonable chances. The politician that isn't liked is voted out based on his own behavior instead of being the peasant sacrificed for the mistakes of the party leadership. Whoever is elected has a good deal of autonomy which leads to debates in the chamber. Whilst in your first post you said that you do have functional debates, you argue in your second post that such things would 'probably' be in the way of ever 'getting anything done.' So you don't have an experience of a working parliament and you can't even imagine such a thing to work. Well, it does. And not only 'probably'. I said, let's put a pin on the tariffs, but maybe we shouldn't waste space on it at all. I don't understand your point with your election system being a remedy to lying and, I guess, bad parenting. If you really want to make that point, you would have to provide me with a lot of logical steps in between. The collectivist system does not stop the EU MPs, the German MPs or the Russian MPs from lying. That would be quite an uphill battle.

[@redgribben7679]

@@benjamingoldstein1111 I think you misunderstand. The member can quit his party and become independent, and some do, other adhere to party politics. No i never said we cannot have debated in our current system, the idea is that instead of all parliamentary members being in every single debate, the party choose specific members to represent them on that policy. Thus while some are debating climate politics, the rest of the party can prepare for a debate on defense, or a proposition on transportation laws and so on. Thus the system becomes more agile, because you have political parties, the process can take longer, because there are more people to listen to, but that also happens in the UK, it is just inner party politics that will be the biggest driver. The Torries or Labour also debates within their own parties that the party line should be. The plurality is simply just absorbed into the two larger parties, and thus there is a greater chance that the extremist can hijack the party, as seen with Trump and his cronies in the US.

[@douggraves4482]

There's none so blind as those who will not see.

[@nautical-edits]

its always a winner with andrew.

[@adyhartmusic]

Superb! Thanks Andrew 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼

[@craftymark7559]

In New Zealand where we have proportional representation , it regularly falls to a small party holding the power over which government you get. Hardly democratic? You also end up with a government run by committee so nothing gets done as they have to appease each other. We also have what is known as list mp’s which are mp’s who no one has voted for? Purely there by the percentage of votes the party received. During the last election we had some mp’s voted out in their seat but remained in parliament by going onto the list? I struggle to see the democracy in that!

[@skoll7706]

Lots of inaccuracy in this comment. Things do get done, they don’t get done too quickly for proper consultation. Smaller parties only get to wield as much power as the majority allows them - which is VERY dependent on the size of the smaller party vote, and how badly the major party wants to form a govt. Party List members ARE voted in - that’s why it’s a mixed member proportional system - the party list is published pre-election so the electorate gets to vote on which party/ies they like. (It’s a little difficult to explain by taping out in my phone, but it DOES make sense) NZ’s system should lower the threshold, and get rid of what’s called coat tailing. We should also increase parliament by 10 - but I’ll get howled at for suggesting such an outrage I’m sure.

[@marumaru6084]

The one weakness is it does give small parties to much power as king makers. The lack of representation for instance on immigration is a bigger negative.

[@yscol1313]

Generally speaking, it’s a good thing when Government can’t get things done. It means they can’t screw things up even more… and spend our money in their efforts.

[@fromchomleystreet]

The democracy is in the fact that each electorate is represented by the candidate that the majority of voters can best stand, rather than the candidate that the largest minority like. In FOTP, it’s entirely possible for the candidate least favoured, by the majority of voters, to win. In systems like those in NZ and Australia, it isn’t.

[@marumaru6084]

@@fromchomleystreet No we have no democracy at the moment at all. The parties lie to get elected and do what they want they are not representative at all.

[@michaeldickson2634]

Scrolling thru YT...Spot Trigg...see Andrew Doyle...must stop and listen to Andrew...not matter what his topic is for the episode.

[@madmelwood3778]

Agree fully

[@emersonmcaree1217]

I was always anti-pr but these days, I'm for electoral reform. Our political system has failed us time and time again

[@peterfmodel]

The German system may be a viable option. New Zealand abandoned their UK style FPTP system for a German MMP system. If that is a bridge too far you could always copy the Australian system and impose a preferential system, which would allow smaller parties to win seats.

[@gladiater56]

One flaw that Conservatives should keep in mind when talking about proportional representation. You will give up your decision on your local representative and instead political parties will decide that. There are no solutions, only trade offs

[@Akm72]

Agreed. The problem we have in the UK is over-powerful central parties. PR just makes them even stronger. What we need to stronger local parties that can hold the central party's feet to the fire.

[@gladiater56]

@@Akm72 Now that's not to say PR has no place in a Westminster style system. If for example the House of Lord's were PR, assuming it has a similar function as the Senate does here in Canada a place of sober second thought, that would enfranchise voters while not sacrificing local representatives in the Commons

[@petenell5807]

You wouldn't have to give it up. Just the current ways they do it, you do. The current PR method is BS. And gives the parties even more power. But we could still elect representatives. One example, the individual candidates that get the highest % of their local vote are the ones that make the proportional lists. There are lots of options. Hell, MPs could get a fractional vote based on the % of the vote they got in their riding rather than everyone getting 1 or something

[@scipioafricanus4328]

Here in New Zealand I initially was concerned about our change from first past the post to Mixed Member Proportional. Right now I am so thankful as two ‘right wing’ parties are keeping our woke National (conservative) party from being totally unbearable and rolling back many woke/socialist policies.

[@donner101]

Scotland ended up with a coalition due to the way their system was set up. So Andrews point about stopping the excesses of government face some separate issues. It was the Greens that were running the government policy on GRCs and 2030 net zero issues. So Infact what you can end up with is the excesses of a minority party just as much as the other way around which is democraticly much worse.

[@nineteenninetyfive]

Roger Scruton made an interesting point that effective democracy relies on other institutions and cultural norms. He said it has been very hard to install democracies because these supporting institutions have not also been given serious concern. I don't think parliament is itself in need of reform, but perhaps other parts of our political system do need reform, such as the police force, the judicial system, the media (BBC) and most of all the civil service and quangos. These institutions seem beyond the light of accountability and get so little attention. It's all blamed on MPs and parliament. Well I doubt it, and to your point about the first past the post ensuring the same parties dominate forever, it is a fact that Labour came from nowhere in the 29th Century to be a serious political force, and other political parties have waned. I strongly believe the SNP will have their dominance challenged soon enough.

[@Afterthoughtbtw]

29th century? Man... I need their time machine! J/k, I largely agree with what you have said.

[@Akm72]

Entirely agree. The politicians are bad because they listen more to the unaccountable broadcast media than they do to anyone else and they have to if they want to win elections.

[@rafezetter8003]

@Norcha8 26 minutes ago "Had we had PR in 2019, Brexit would have been stopped." So you think the vote should have been stopped completely? How very "democratic" of you. Thanks for proving my point.

[@lumpyfishgravy]

I've flip-flopped on PR. If you had asked me ten years ago I would have pointed across the English Channel and remarked that PR does not provide an effective means of sacking bad politicians. If you had asked me one year ago I would have remarked there is no difference between Conservatives and Labour and FPTP has also failed. Today, I fear the leverage PR would give a Muslim Party - especially given block voting practices which reverse Universal Suffrage.

[@BobBob-cn1yy]

Labour God help us

[@DrGreenGiant]

"could it really get any worse?" - yes. And that's what scares me.

[@steveunderwood3683]

The only vote of value would be to vote the civil service out.

[@madmelwood3778]

Yep

[@2mains234]

Why?

[@steveunderwood3683]

@@2mains234 In the 1980s, when Yes Minister and Yes Prime Minister were first aired, NOBODY disputed its premise. Numerous ex ministers, both Labour and. Conservative, agreed that this was how the UK government actually functioned. Here we are 40 years later, and still it matters very little who you vote for, the civil service gets in.

[@Akm72]

@@steveunderwood3683 Indeed. Our politicians have to play the game to climb the greasy ladder to the top and when they finally get into the cabinet and can actually made a difference they find that the levers of power they have access to don't actually do anything. What we need is a 'spoils' system in which in the incoming party, having won office, brings in their own managers to take over the senior positions in the civil service.

[@steveunderwood3683]

@@Akm72 The US has that kind of system, yet their civil service seems to go it's own way almost as much as the UK. Perhaps we can charge people who consistently subvert the will of elected officials with treason. It's a complex problem, but the status quo is a dismal failure.

[@KevTheImpaler]

I think a Labour conference voted for Proportional Represent a couple of years ago, but no doubt the issue will be dropped when Labour get into power with a huge majority.

[@teresabenson3385]

This is equally applicable to us in the U.S. 😢

[@rbir2653]

SNP are in coalition. We had a referendum on electoral reform. Alternative Vote.

[@samanthaclugston6685]

VOTE REFORM UK PEOPLE 🇬🇧!!!

[@amg863]

For the rejects from the Tory government that got us in this mess in the first place? LOL NO thanks

[@samanthaclugston6685]

@@amg863 VOTE LABOUR THEN NUMPTY!

[@amg863]

@@samanthaclugston6685 why would I do that? Starmer is the same as your favourite politicians. He's not one of us.

[@samanthaclugston6685]

@@amg863 SO NATIONAL FRONT THEN?

[@fromchomleystreet]

As an Australian, who always assumed that all the basic tenets of our electoral system were inherited from Westminster, I’m astonished to only now learn that the UK uses First Past The Post voting. It’s like finding out that you guys haven’t discovered the fork yet.

[@Bayonet1809]

More like they haven't discovered the spork.

[@kayedal-haddad9294]

Long overdue!

[@johnbrown6611]

I believe that AV is excellent and that it was a mistake to not vote for it when we had the chance. Three reasons : 1) I like the FPTP idea of having a specific/single MP/representative for a specific/single constituency and a person who can be removed by the electorate. PR means that representatives/MPs represent an area, are selected by the parties and hence cannot be removed. 2) The elected MP/representative will have received 50% or more of the votes. 3) AV eliminates the ridiculous and undemocratic situation where a constituency elects an MP/representative who definitely does NOT represent their views because of a split vote.

[@rawprawn8198]

Thoroughly, absolutley enjoyed this Andrew. Thank you!

[@OldManRogers]

Ireland has PR with transfer, might not get exactly who you want but more people are less unhappy. Also means voting Green or Lib Dem isn't a wasted vote ie no need to vote 'tactically'

[@SubjectRandom21]

It doesn't matter who the people vote for. If you think it actually matters...you need to think again. Why else do so many say 'we're sick of it'?

[@PaulJohn01]

I used to vote LibDem a very long time ago for 1 very specific reason, Electoral Reform, proportional representation and a more fair playing field, because well, I'm British and that's part of being British. I abandoned the LibDems when they abandonded Electoral Reform to get into bed with the Conservatives and eat the scraps tossed to them by the Tories. After the next Civil War in Britain assuming the correct side wins, we need proportional representation, there are several forms of it available.

[@emperorsnewclothes9405]

here in wales our labour masters have decided to increase the numbers of mp's by a third , turkeys don't vote for Christmas

[@jimbo9305]

AV (also called IRV, instant runoff voting) is better than the current system. I'm speaking from an American perspective, so it's still relatable but slightly different. The problem with purely proportional representation is that it gives more consideration to urban areas. The politicians could campaign in a handful of cities and take the whole thing. I'm not sure if that applies to the UK because of PM instead of president. Anyway, the benefit to IRV is that smaller parties are able to compete without drawing votes away from the party that is more likely to win. In first past the post (winner takes all) if I want to vote Libertarian I'm essentially wasting my vote. I'm better off voting for a Democrat or Republican that aligns more closely with my political ideals. But with IRV I could vote Libertarian, with my second choice for Democrat or Republican. The problem with getting the electoral system changed is that it is a threat to the Democrat-Republican and Tory-Labour dichotomy. They would much rather fight each other than have to deal with a third, fourth, fifth, etc party siphoning off their potential votes.

[@lancemcclung3991]

The only reform needed is holding elected representatives accountable to their constituents. The issue is no matter what party and what platform, once in the HoC you get progressive globalists multiculturalism and diversity is our strength uniparty governance.

[@sallyjones3377]

A opposition party thats does their job in opposition is the only answer.

[@loopylucy4301]

If a political party had the interests of the people at the forefront and the real intention of serving the people and not themselves, then they would have no fear of a PR system. The fact they won't change the system or even give people the vote on it, shows their ill intentions and the knowledge that they would lose power. If the people want a populist government, then that's their right to choose, not the politicians place to deny, cos it doesn't fit with their agendas

[@dcharlton5897]

The Alternative Vote system proposed in the 2011 ref was never going to offer a total solution. But it would have been a small step towards improved representation and was capable of being easily grafted onto our existing system. It was a missed opportunity to pave the way for more fundamental reform in the future. The problem now is that since that vote it's become clear that this country is utterly incapable of implementing any strategic national project. HS2, Brexit, Covid response, NHS, etc. Can you imagine what a monumental lash-up they'd make of fundamental electoral reform? I'd rather they didn't bother trying tbh

[@richardmuskett931]

Botanists use the prefix "dog" to indicate that a plant is useless and unfit for any purpose .... "dog rose " , "dogwood" . Unfortunately , we have a "dogmocracy" . PS Good video. So clear and simple , even I could understand it . And the sound engineering so clear , even I could hear it .

[@mattyj4852]

In Australia, we use a preferential electoral system for the lower house and a proportional system for the upper house. It works reasonably well in that 1) the nation gets the on balance gets the government they either want or can tolerate better than the alternatives and 2) the senate rarely follows the majority of the lower house such that is able to ensure responsible government. Where it fails is that the senate's primary function according to the constitution was to represent each state's individual interests. However, because senators from different states are able to be part of the same political party as each other and even part of the same party as MPs, senator represent party interests which extend beyond state lines rather than the the interests of the state they represent. The framers of our constitution never imagined that voters would value ensuring federal government power over state representation. The lesson is, while the UK should consider electoral reform, such reforms shouldn't be taken lightly as unintended consequences are extremely likely and the end result may not be what you want.

[@antirnator8194]

Find me a competent authoritarian and I will vote for him.

[@edmundprice5276]

here is one way to reform our democracy, instead of having elections, we could have a vote registration system. you could go down to your local council office at any time when they are open and re-register your vote. then they could update the vote tally every three months. if you didn't change your vote since last time, it would be assumed that you still support the same candidate.

[@jamesmiller8691]

The federal parliament in Australia (and the state parliaments in Victoria, NSW, SA, QLD, Tas, and WA) use AV voting. They've used it for more than 100 years. IT WORKS! ALL of them have multi-party representation in parliament. The federal parliament (and the state parliaments in Victoria, NSW, SA, and WA) has single-member electorates in the lower house and multi-member proportional representation electorates in the upper house. They had it for more than 100 years. IT WORKS! Copy Oz. It works!

[@maddyg3208]

It works so well that Dan Andrews's ALP got reelected with 37% of the primary vote ...

[@mcshutup5598]

​@@maddyg3208 correct, as a typically ALP voter, this is an example of it working

[@steeltrap3800]

@@maddyg3208Can you name a government in Australia with 50% or greater of primary votes? As far as I know, NO government EVER reaches that level. In that Vic election, the Libs got 29.6% of primary votes; clearly THEY'RE not valid by that measure, so who do you believe OUGHT to be in government? To mention primary votes as though they ought to be the determinant suggests to me you would prefer a different system, and thus don't believe the system that is (largely) used in Aus is superior to the alternatives. Having looked at a lot of them, I would have to disagree with you on that point. But I'm happy to hear directly from you about it; it's kind of the point of a democracy to be able to discuss differences, isn't it? Cheers

[@nioengland]

That rare glimpse of the full truth is refreshing.. revealing the true nature of our lame level uniparty.. Too many film actors in the world

[@lasentinal]

As an Australian, I like our compulsory voting system, which really isn't compulsory, it is however , compulsory to turn up and have your name marked off as attending. So what you do on the ballot paper is secret. I also like our preferential system, which means that if your first choice doesn't get 50% plus 1 or better, then your second preference has the same value as your first, until the magic 50% plus 1 or better. There is a different and more complicated system in voting and counting Senate and other upper house votes. I do like the multi member seats in the Tasmanian parliament, I also like the New Zealand system of proportional representation. These are much fairer than the first past the post system.

[@John_Findlay]

There are many possible 'proportional' voting systems, so which one would you propose, they all have their trade-offs. The electoral reform society used to favour multi-member constituencies with STV. Many years ago there was an article in the Independent, when it was a half-decent newspaper, entitled 'How to tell Kenneth Baker you hate him', and it explained the benefits of STV. So, which one would you choose ? You can't advocate for PR and not say which system you'd want.

[@caedrewan]

In 2015, I voted for Trudeau, looking forward to the promise of proportional representation. A promise that he never pursued after getting into power.

[@amg863]

Hahahaha you did what

[@caedrewan]

@@amg863 it was a different time

[@johnl5316]

California has has a 1 party state since migration surged in the 1980s

[@richardstever3242]

Constitutional Republic...hello! Not exactly the same as a democracy.

[@jeni040866]

Im politically homeless. I'd like to see an end to party politics altogether, all MPs should be independent representatives of their constituency, free to make alliances with different MPs for different things instead of being whipped to vote a certain way at a certain time.

[@DrEhrfurchtgebietend]

If you are going to move to proportional representation, there's two common fit pitfalls you really need to watch out for. One is rank choice voting and the other is partisan voting. Partisan voting is when you vote directly for a party instead of a candidate.

[@sciencefliestothemoon2305]

Guess the latter could only be prevented by voting for the party first and then a candidate?

[@evanburrows1697]

Ranked choice voting is superior to proportional representation because it preserves local representation and individual accountability.

[@DrEhrfurchtgebietend]

@@sciencefliestothemoon2305 No. There are good system like MES or SSS which give you high levels of proportional representation without partisan voting. No partisan voting ever. That is a fundamental principal.

[@DrEhrfurchtgebietend]

@@evanburrows1697 There are systems which give high PR and preserve locality (mostly). However, I agree that single member districts are desirable if you really care about local representation. BUT.... RCV is the worst option, specifically IRV as the implementation. The good systems are Approval, STAR, STLR and Score.

[@evanburrows1697]

@@DrEhrfurchtgebietend you have a bee in your bonnet about "parties". Fine. But virtually nobody on the planet agrees with you, and "systems without parties" are as rare as hen's teeth for that reason. You're simply arguing against human nature.

[@zombiechaddy]

STAR voting with proportional representation is the answer for proper representation

[@simongreaves9465]

STAR voting is interesting and new. It has so far been used inside organisations and not given to the public electorate. It is quite possible that in practice in a general election it would be effectively little different from FPTP with people giving most of their scores to one of the two parties most likely to win. But, time will tell.

[@DrEhrfurchtgebietend]

​@@simongreaves9465that is an incredibly unlikely scenario. Also, I think you misunderstand the system because you don't give away score. You are just scoring them

[@simongreaves9465]

@@DrEhrfurchtgebietend Once the scores have been tallied you end up with two parties for the run off and I believe that this might lead to voters prefering 2 or 3 main parties with small parties pushed out. I understand that you can rate parties on a scale of 1 to 5 but I think people will end up giving parties a score of 1 or 5 in order to make their votes count as much as possible.

[@DrEhrfurchtgebietend]

@@simongreaves9465 You can believe what you want but it will not make it true. If you want to maximize your vote power you need to distinguish between candidates in the run off. That means if you only give 1s and 5s you can't distinguish between two ones or two 5s in the run-off. This incentives people to give votes in the middle. There are always strategic games to be plays with any system. STAR minimizes them.

[@simongreaves9465]

@@DrEhrfurchtgebietend you might be right. It'll certainly be interesting if places start trying it out

[@thomridgeway1438]

It's not the political party that matters ..... it's the quality of the candidate you choose to be a politician. It's now a uni-party. They are all the same. They are all corrupt career politicians, brought and paid for by lobbiests, banks, unions and corporations. They are all party men, and of a herd mind. Most have low IQs, but can talk the talk. 70 years ago your MP was typically a highly respected member of the local community; or they had fought hard in a war. They earned their right to represent us by hard experience in life. Now they are all grifters out for what they can get. Surely the greatest satire is that they call themselves Right Honorable when the truth is the exact opposite. We need to find ways to clear the rotten apples and improve the ways politicians are selected and make them so transparent that honesty and proberty is unavoidable. If we can find problem solvers, system analysts, supreme intellects, engineers, people who think outside the box (and they should be from all walks of life not just ivory towers) ... they should be our MP's ...... that's how we get a better society.

[@themanager4983]

The trouble with any type of PR is that governments are formed through opaque back-room deals between party managers. This doesn't solve the problem of managerialism, it reinforces it. The example of Germany as a PR success story seems odd considering PR delivered one 'grand coalition' after another, contributing to Germany's current unenviable position. Changing the voting system could result in our own 'grand coalition' aimed at excluding any genuine challengers, whilst the cultural destruction and poor policy decisions continue to be executed by, increasingly authoritarian, PMC types who run the country through various unaccountable QUANGOs and NGOs.

[@steeltrap3800]

You could do a LOT worse than look at the system(s) in Aus. It addresses many of the biggest concerns I have with the state of democracy around the world: 1. LOADS of 'representatives' who don't have any basis to claim to represent anything. They do NOT have >50% of all votes cast. Solved in Aus using the preferential system. Each voter ranks all candidates. If their first preference is knocked out of the contest, their vote goes to their next preference. This continues until one candidate ends up with a majority. Thus EVERY person elected can claim to represent their constituency. I was shocked to see just how many seats in the UK national election were held by people with as little as 37% of votes cast; that's APPALLING. 2. LOW TURNOUT. Solved in Aus with the incorrectly termed 'compulsory' voting. It's NOT compulsory to vote, it's compulsory to ATTEND a polling place (leaving out pre-poll votes etc). You DON'T have to cast a vote at all. What generally happens, however, is most people who attend DO vote. There are 'sausage sizzles' and other things, the whole event taking on a somewhat festive air. Unpleasantness, let alone an incident that's newsworthy, is very rare. Any person who claims to value democracy ought to be appalled at low turnouts across the globe. The fewer that vote, the greater the potential dislocation between the governed and the governing. Last Federal election in Aus had the lowest turnout since the 'compulsory' voting was introduced, and it was STILL 89%. Combine 1 and 2 and you see there are FAR too many people 'representing' areas on the basis of 40-45% of the votes cast, but they could be as low as 60% of the eligible, so the person can only claim to have the support of potentially ~25% of ALL voters in their seat. How can they claim with a straight face to represent anything?? That's a BIG problem for democracy. When someone can perfectly legitimately say that their representative has ~25% of eligible votes and thus doesn't represent them, THEY'RE CORRECT. 3. Boundaries of seats, conduct of elections etc Aus has an independent body that determines the borders of electorates. It does so following very clear principles. It means each election there can be adjustments that might suddenly make a seat more likely to be won by one candidate than another, sometimes even making the incumbent the underdog. ALL PARTIES accept the system, knowing all such things are NOT orchestrated by political tricks. They also run the elections in the same way across the country. Again, no nonsense such as we see in the States. Is it perfect? Of course not. BUT I think it does a better job of addressing some serious issues seen in other democracies. It's hard to believe the UK, USA, Canada etc wouldn't be healthier democracies under these systems than their current ones. OK, now tell me everything that's BAD about the Aus systems, LOL. Cheers

[@dmokrchat2908]

Reduce the number of MPs and Lords. Replace the Lords with a PR system. We then might get some representative challenge of what the lower house proposes.

[@siukcnc]

The whole premis of national governence needs changing, merely changing the way votes are counted won't change anything.

[@szejch_al-mawza]

The problem with proportionate electoral system is that smaller party often does not get credit for a success with its bigger partner, while taking hit when it fails. This cause them to become louder and more demanding, which causes collapse of a coalition. I think the only time it works if smaller party occupies some stable niche and does not have too big ambitions. If implemented in Britain it will take lot of time to stabilise. Lib Dem experience from previous coalition probably taught them not to do it again. Parties like Reform or UKIP will lose their anti-establishment reputation if they join government. The rest of them is too weak. I think I would start reforming electoral system by moving voting to a weekend. Right now it favours retired people who have plenty of time to spend. I remember how much mental effort it took me to drag myself to polling station during Brexit referendum after night shift. I am sure there were plenty of people who just gave up on voting.

[@loracle540]

PR is not democracy. We are a democracy because we select our representative. Under PR political parties select our representatives and we end up with someone both unsuitable and unrepresentative of the views of the electorate. We need to undo all the political gimmics of the past 40 years and make it easier for independants to enter elections. Party funds spent should be restricted and independants funded to at least the median of those of of the political parties. All candidates should live in the constituency they wish to represent at the time of their candidateship.

[@KevTheImpaler]

The only thing the voting public can do is sack the government. Maybe a party can be dragged a little bit in one direction or another.

[@StillAliveAndKicking_]

The central problem with most forms of PR is that it becomes impossible to get rid of an incompetent MP, and parties can get rid of awkward MPs. Thus parties put forward lists of candidates that pander to the party leadership. A solution is to have a second transferable vote. Thus if a candidate fails to get more than 50% of votes, the last is eliminated, and her second choice votes are counted. This goes on until someone gets more than 50%. It is not ideal, but at least it avoids a minority choice candidate winning. I speak as someone who hates PR, but also hates the current unfair system.

[@simongreaves9465]

Single Transferable Vote within constituencies having 3 MPs has been proposed as the solution to lists.

[@StillAliveAndKicking_]

@@simongreaves9465 I don’t understand what you mean.

[@chrisnorton4382]

The problem with transferable voting systems is that a party could get 40% of the national vote and no seats, e.g. parties A 35%, B 25%, C 40%. A and B second votes go to each other. Fair at the constituency level but a democratic failure at the larger national level, as bad or even worse than FPTP.

[@simongreaves9465]

@@StillAliveAndKicking_ This is the system you described in three seat constituencies. Each party offers a short unordered list of 3 candidates. They cant give an unpopular candidate a comfortable seat because the electorate will prioritise alternatives. Most constituencies will elect 2 MPs from their favoured party and 1 from the second party. In constituencies where 3 parties are strong they each get 1 MP. This makes it proportional

[@simongreaves9465]

@chrisnorton4382 The probability of that under AV is mathematically negligible requiring every seat in the country to be identical. Under STV it would be impossible and the C would come out as the largest party. Transferable vote systems would encourage a greater number of narrower parties. The political world would be very different and much more representative

[@VeniVidiVid]

I regularly agree with your commentary, and agree with most of this video. I’d add that, while democracy is better than most of the other arrangements, there’s an additional trick which helps minimize the worst abuses of mob rule: Limit what is up for a vote. This is the advantage that Constitutional Republics theoretically hold over pure democracies. A constitution should enumerate the powers subject to group control via vote. Want to allow the mob to vote on what shirt color you wear today? Enumerate it in the constitution, or it doesn’t matter how popular that shirt color is. The result can be more freedom and less populist oppression. There are precious few issues which absolutely require consensus and conformity across an entire nation. Codify those clearly in writing, and allow all the remaining diverse activity to coexist absent proven harm.

[@paulwarren4256]

The problem with PR is that a mobilised sectional interest will get far more representation than is warranted if the turnout is generally low. We need to consider compulsory voting to ensure these sectional interests are arithmetically diluted.

[@petenell5807]

The main problem with proportional as it is done now is that it gives parties way MORE power. They have to much already. They get to pick the candidates that go, which means the top pick is basically guaranteed to be in government, which is terrible. If we used a different system to pick, like individual ridings also elect people and the candidates with the highest percentage vote go on the list for the proportional part, it would be ok.

[@sonofednawelthorpe8609]

I like the two party system - and both Labour and Tories don’t want PR so I can’t see it ever happening.

[@johnnywalker472]

German here, I strongly oppose the idea we "made it work", when one political party is regularly assaulted and beeing compared to the worst part of our history for beeing critical of immigration. Furthermore, judges having dinner with the chancellor before making important decisions regarding policies of that very chancellor and prosecuters who get told whom to prosecute by politics, I believe we have a lot of work to do.

[@rachelbattersby949]

Be careful what you wish for. Proportional representation makes for parties with minority support not only getting seats but being kingmakers and getting unpopular policies get into law eg gender ID with the Greens in Scotland. Countries which have this system also tend to end up being very slow to agree to action, and compromises can lead to policies that no-one is happy with.

[@KevTheImpaler]

You can get tail wagging the dog problems with PR, such as that in Scotland where the SNP have been dancing to the Greens' tune. The big political parties are coalitions in themselves. I still think our current system is manifestly unfair. Voters have to assess which way their fellow constituents are likely to vote before deciding to vote for a party that most represents their political views or for one that comes closest that has a realistic chance of winning, or one that is most likely to stop the party you most dislike from winning. There's about 100,000 people in each constituency, so you have to assess historical voting patterns, the social class make up, the ethnic make up, whether they live in the town or country, whether they are young or old. It's ridiculous. People should just vote for who they want.

[@Richard-xp4sh]

PR is required for sure. or possibly Direct Democracy.

[@CDHandford]

Mixed Memeber Parliament!

[@mtrhodesy]

Just an option on ballot to vote no confidence in presented candidates, it's no longer a wasted vote but a real way to make them change. Election only valid if a certain percentage of population vote, and winners must gain a stated percent in their area or until voters get the candidates that they have confidence in.

[@Oliver_S]

I am truly behind PR I really want to see it happen.

[@davidagnew6191]

There is a very easy reform that would improve the situation, and that is to simply allocate the seats in the House of Lords in proportion to the votes cast at a general election. That would eliminate the 'wasted' vote as everyone's vote would have at least some affect in parliament. What's not to like?

[@annys4797]

I voted for PR (AV) in 2010. I had heard the arguments against. These included giving disproportionate influence to minority parties, including extremists whose views were worlds away from mainstream public opinion. I dismissed them. Over the past few years I've watched the SNP/Greens at work in the Bute House Agreement. A cautionary tale on the dangers of one party rule Andrew? Or a real world example of a (Green) tail wagging a (yellow) dog? The list system also ensured that the Scots did not vote for-or withhold their vote from- crack pots like Harvie. The Green Party machine made the decisions, squeezing out prospective Green candidates who did not support trans ideology. FPTP has many flaws, but it seems it is better than all alternatives currently on offer.

[@agustinarcusa7696]

When you have big tent parties, the opposition is often found within the party itself, as exemplified by the Tories

[@RichardEnglander]

PR Direct Democracy Compulsory voting Ban on theocratic political movements

[@Chris-gs8kc]

I would like to see a system like that in Switzerland.

[@TotesRandom]

The entire party system itself should be abolished. It is antiquaited and only leads to little boys clubs and easier abuse of power. Everyone should stand as independants and whips in the UK parliament should be a thing of the past.

[@DrEhrfurchtgebietend]

This is the problem with most proportional representation systems. Instead of moving away from parties it entrenches them

[@simongreaves9465]

No such thing as a true independent. Independents win because they have supporters and because they collaborate with others. They are effectively small parties. And small parites end up being beaten by bigger ones until what you have is what we've got.

[@muskokalad9567]

Just an idea but with everyone having computers why not have a monthly people vote where every citizen votes online on laws etc..

[@DrEhrfurchtgebietend]

@@simongreaves9465 You are missing the point.

[@evanburrows1697]

@@DrEhrfurchtgebietend actually, he's 100% nailing the point. Simply calling yourself an "independent" doesn't change anything because people will still form groups to work together. And why shouldn't they? Politics is literally about how humans collaborate to solve problems, and it's best it is done in the most open and transparent way possible.

[@ReasonsToComment-ic2cc]

Starmer = Hard Labour.

[@thanksfernuthin]

Some primaries would be nice.

[@MalCroughton]

A Moslem Alliance or similar unfavourable minor party holding the balance of power would certainly be interesting. For foreign observers at least

[@nonyadamnbusiness9887]

A system designed for political parties is a failure from the start. Trying to get better politicians is like trying to get a better case of clap. Design a system in which human beings make the decisions.

[@danielshagman]

Sortition. It's not perfect, but it stops us having people in power who are career politicians and therefore in a bubble. I'd love to see us give it a go, mainly because it can't be any worse than what we've got.

[@leehallam9365]

It's tempting, isn't it? Change the voting system and solve all these problems. The trouble is that PR is in place in most countries and their governments are not more respected by voters, elites are no more responsive to voters or committed to Democracy. The SNP dominated Scotland by ruthless party discipline and by gaming a PR system with the Greens. Germany had for years the tiny LIberal party holding the balance, and recent coalitions have not been a happy experience. Of course it would be better if our system got more representatives for smaller parties into Patliament. But the point of democracy isn't a fair share of political jobs. It is to pick a government and to ve able to kick them out. Our system is very good at that. We won't get a wishy washy deal decided after we have voted. UKIP also shows the way its votes were not wasted, it's impact directly pushed Cameron to call the referendum, essential that 15% of voters with one seat got their way.

[@elkabongg2716]

It isn't obvious that democracy is working very well currently in the UK or the US. It seems that few people feel there is a candidate or party that really appeals to them or will deliver a government which will serve their wishes. Its more a case of voting against the leader or party they dislike most or think will be the most inept and realistically there is a choice between two parties or individuals. How did the US end up with having to choose between those two relics. In the UK what exactly is the Labour Party Party offering that is so different from the Tories who most people are completely fed up with. There is an air of decline decay and degeneration about Western democracies in general. There appears to be a growing impetus coming from Eastern alternatives to democracy.

[@madmelwood3778]

The case for this wss at yhe last election when the SNP.got less votes than UKIO yey they got more seats in parliament.

[@tommysmith5479]

First past the post is not democracy and anyone who tells you that it is is very wrong. If I live in a predominantly labour constituency but I want to vote conservative, them my vote is effectively null and void; completely pointless. And vice-versa if I lived in a predominantly conservative area. And as you pointed out, if I live in any area but i want to vote for something other than labour or the conservatives, then again my vote is wasted.

[@danielwebb8402]

FPTP has as many pros as cons / other systems. If it ain't broke.... we aren't on a self defined version 76 of country in less than few hundred years

[@nathantaylor9829]

Is there not a middle ground? LIke doing representative voting once every ten years and having more referendums? . That way the danger giving extremist, populist and often impractical, unprofessional parties too much long term power is at least limited.

[@simongreaves9465]

The character of political parties are driven by voting system. FPTP gives us two broad church parties that few of electorate like. FPTP ensures that the Opposition doesnt need to win, it just has to wait for the Government to lose. PR is the other extreme where narrower opposition parties can win but still not form the Government. e.g. The Netherlands. AV is the best compromise

[@Chipskate]

One thing I do like about fptp is that we have a local mp who is responsible for the concerns of his constituency. Citizens of a constituency can communicate with their own mp.

[@Mitjitsu]

When it comes to by election people may think about the person who is standing, but the average person votes for the person based the party next to their name, but more importantly few people could name who their local MP is.

[@DrEhrfurchtgebietend]

All single winter systems work this way. There are much better ones like approval and star

[@simongreaves9465]

Are you old enough to have voted in the AV referendum. If so, how did you vote?

[@Chipskate]

@@simongreaves9465 I'm 3 years too young, but I would have voted for it. Don't get me wrong I do want to see another party besides the lib lab con.

[@Chipskate]

@@DrEhrfurchtgebietend I agree. But I disagree with the video suggesting proportional voting as there wouldn't be the same accountability, and you would be more likely to elect at least one or two fringe loonies who disrupt parliament.

[@evanburrows1697]

In Australia, they use "preferential voting", also known in USA as "ranked choice voting". Your description of "alternative vote" sounds like it might have been the same thing. I'm not sure why your so down on it. It allows people to vote for minor parties without risk of "splitting the vote" while still maintaining local representation (which "proportional representation" does away with.) To me, that's a pretty good package, and it's a pity UK rejected it.

[@Bayonet1809]

Or just get rid of the system of political parties entirely? Where the people would vote for their local candidate, who then represents their electorate by presenting and voting on bills before parliament. The prime minister, and those with portfolios, can be decided on by vote of all members of parliament. I would like to think that such a system would be less reductionist, and allow more independent thinking, rather than everyone towing a party line.